3 ms·

> It is not short-term rentals, it is not individuals owning too many houses, it is not rich people moving in to a neighborhood, it is not Chinese money fleeing

> It is not short-term rentals, it is not individuals owning too many houses, it is not rich people moving in to a neighborhood, it is not Chinese money fleeing the PRC, and it is not private equity "commodifying" housing. It's all those things. Stop looking for a single explanation. That's not how the world works. > overburdening regulation. Last two times my country tried to cut out the red tape it ended up costing trillions in fixes, and meant fewer builds in the end. Building regulations are good, there is a reason they exist.

kelnos 3y ago
> It's all those things. Stop looking for a single explanation. Yes, it is all those things. They all contribute some non-zero amount. But if you just build more housing, those other things end up not mattering. Consider: There are too many short-term rentals, and people can't find houses to buy -> Build more housing, problem solved. Too many people own second homes, and people can't find houses to buy -> Build more housing, problem solved. Rich people / foreigners / private equity are buying up housing, and people can't find houses to buy -> Build more housing, problem solved. (This one also solves the cause as well; if there's enough housing -- because you keep building -- this housing becomes less attractive to rich people / foreigners / private equity, because they don't envision a return on their investment that's worth it.) > Last two times my country tried to cut out the red tape it ended up costing trillions in fixes, and meant fewer builds in the end. Building regulations are good, there is a reason they exist. Those aren't the kind's of things the GP is talking about. Safety standards are of course something we should not relax. What we're talking about: * Restrictive zoning (e.g. "only single family homes", "no street level retail", "max height two stories", "must have parking for N cars per household", etc.). * Allowing people who live nearby to object to construction on any grounds, which kicks off months (or years) of hearings and legal fights, that often results in projects being greatly scaled down or cancelled. (Ultimately, the homeowners just don't want more housing because they fear it will affect their own property values. Pretty much everything else is just an excuse to attempt to avoid sounding greedy or classist.) * Laws like the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) -- a reasonable law with good intentions -- that is abused by other homeowners to tie up development projects in court. * Capricious city planning departments that can hold up or deny approval for arbitrary reasons having nothing to do with building codes. * Long permitting processes that are necessary, but the bureaucracy spends more time than necessary. All of this ends up killing projects, or making projects prohibitively expensive. If you're a developer looking to build a condominium building, even though the actual build might only take 6 months, you will have to factor in legal costs, and just the cost of sitting around doing nothing for possibly a year or more (while the loan you took out to buy the land still needs its interest payments) before you can start building. And that's if you're lucky; maybe your project gets cancelled, or maybe it gets scaled down to the point where it's not financially feasible at all. And if you do finally get approval and finish your build, you now have to sell the units at what many would consider "luxury" prices, because your costs to build ended up being far higher than they needed to be.
- bombcar 3y ago
  That’s the thing - allow builders to build insanely expensive luxury flats with no minimums of anything, and they’ll develop tons of lots. And luxury apartments don’t cause rich people to spawn out of nowhere, increasing the supply at the top allows everyone to move up, somewhat.
LargeTomato 3y ago
Can you explain how you got from "overburdening regulation" to "all regulation must go"? I think I missed that in the original argument.
- anothernewdude 3y ago
  If you're arguing for less regulation without naming specifics, then you don't care what goes. If you don't care about specifics, then "all regulation must go" is your position. If they actually cared, then they'd be complaining about the particular onerous regulations and why they shouldn't exist. Rather than just complaining about "regulations" in general, ignoring why such things are necessary.

kelnos 3y ago

> It's all those things. Stop looking for a single explanation. Yes, it is all those things. They all contribute some non-zero amount. But if you just build more housing, those other things end up not mattering. Consider: There are too many short-term rentals, and people can't find houses to buy -> Build more housing, problem solved. Too many people own second homes, and people can't find houses to buy -> Build more housing, problem solved. Rich people / foreigners / private equity are buying up housing, and people can't find houses to buy -> Build more housing, problem solved. (This one also solves the cause as well; if there's enough housing -- because you keep building -- this housing becomes less attractive to rich people / foreigners / private equity, because they don't envision a return on their investment that's worth it.) > Last two times my country tried to cut out the red tape it ended up costing trillions in fixes, and meant fewer builds in the end. Building regulations are good, there is a reason they exist. Those aren't the kind's of things the GP is talking about. Safety standards are of course something we should not relax. What we're talking about: * Restrictive zoning (e.g. "only single family homes", "no street level retail", "max height two stories", "must have parking for N cars per household", etc.). * Allowing people who live nearby to object to construction on any grounds, which kicks off months (or years) of hearings and legal fights, that often results in projects being greatly scaled down or cancelled. (Ultimately, the homeowners just don't want more housing because they fear it will affect their own property values. Pretty much everything else is just an excuse to attempt to avoid sounding greedy or classist.) * Laws like the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) -- a reasonable law with good intentions -- that is abused by other homeowners to tie up development projects in court. * Capricious city planning departments that can hold up or deny approval for arbitrary reasons having nothing to do with building codes. * Long permitting processes that are necessary, but the bureaucracy spends more time than necessary. All of this ends up killing projects, or making projects prohibitively expensive. If you're a developer looking to build a condominium building, even though the actual build might only take 6 months, you will have to factor in legal costs, and just the cost of sitting around doing nothing for possibly a year or more (while the loan you took out to buy the land still needs its interest payments) before you can start building. And that's if you're lucky; maybe your project gets cancelled, or maybe it gets scaled down to the point where it's not financially feasible at all. And if you do finally get approval and finish your build, you now have to sell the units at what many would consider "luxury" prices, because your costs to build ended up being far higher than they needed to be.

bombcar 3y ago
That’s the thing - allow builders to build insanely expensive luxury flats with no minimums of anything, and they’ll develop tons of lots. And luxury apartments don’t cause rich people to spawn out of nowhere, increasing the supply at the top allows everyone to move up, somewhat.

LargeTomato 3y ago

Can you explain how you got from "overburdening regulation" to "all regulation must go"? I think I missed that in the original argument.

anothernewdude 3y ago
If you're arguing for less regulation without naming specifics, then you don't care what goes. If you don't care about specifics, then "all regulation must go" is your position. If they actually cared, then they'd be complaining about the particular onerous regulations and why they shouldn't exist. Rather than just complaining about "regulations" in general, ignoring why such things are necessary.