4 ms·

I'm sure it works for the residents of Stockholm, but not so much for all sorts of people who would move to Stockholm but can't wait in line 10 years for an apa

I'm sure it works for the residents of Stockholm, but not so much for all sorts of people who would move to Stockholm but can't wait in line 10 years for an apartment.

anovikov 3y ago
Yes that's right! 10 years is an understatement. It means simply that the city is "locked out" for everyone but locals who inherited rental contract from their grandfathers, or multimillionaire cash buyers.
- htag 3y ago
  Maybe this is the hack for managing city growth
  - imtringued 3y ago
    Why do you want successful cities to stop growing? Especially ones that have zero desire to stop attracting employers. Offices take up very little space so if you let developers build commercial real estate you will always have a mismatch between housing and jobs if you stop building residential real estate. This will displace lower income people in the end and lead to gentrification rather than a stop to growth.
    - toast0 3y ago
      Having a mechanism to reduce growth is actually great. It's hard to increase transportation infrastructure in a built-up area. And when you do, everybody says it didn't work because traffic is still bad or trains are still overfull. But they never notice that population increased during construction. If you could stop growth, then your transportation needs stabilize. Doesn't really feel fair to me though, because it's so hard to move into the closed city. Personally, I'm a fan of limiting rent increases to a max of something like 5-10% per year. Not so much that it's a total hardship to deal with a max increase; not so little that landlords have to do max increases every year or get way off market; also not so little that a landlord can't catch up later if they purposefully lag on increases to keep a preferred tenant.
BeFlatXIII 3y ago
…and why should the current residents of Stockholm give a toss about the people who aren't there but want to move in and drive up prices?
- jrockway 3y ago
  Because of economies of scale, the incremental increase in tax revenue that a new resident provides is more money than it costs to have one more resident in the city.
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  I don't think anyone said they should. However, to the extent that the housing policies are determined by larger-than-local government agencies, there shouldn't be some citizens getting a large benefit and similar citizens getting the shaft.

I'm sure it works for the residents of Stockholm, but not so much for all sorts of people who would move to Stockholm but can't wait in line 10 years for an apartment.

anovikov 3y ago

Yes that's right! 10 years is an understatement. It means simply that the city is "locked out" for everyone but locals who inherited rental contract from their grandfathers, or multimillionaire cash buyers.

htag 3y ago
Maybe this is the hack for managing city growth
- imtringued 3y ago
  Why do you want successful cities to stop growing? Especially ones that have zero desire to stop attracting employers. Offices take up very little space so if you let developers build commercial real estate you will always have a mismatch between housing and jobs if you stop building residential real estate. This will displace lower income people in the end and lead to gentrification rather than a stop to growth.
  - toast0 3y ago
    Having a mechanism to reduce growth is actually great. It's hard to increase transportation infrastructure in a built-up area. And when you do, everybody says it didn't work because traffic is still bad or trains are still overfull. But they never notice that population increased during construction. If you could stop growth, then your transportation needs stabilize. Doesn't really feel fair to me though, because it's so hard to move into the closed city. Personally, I'm a fan of limiting rent increases to a max of something like 5-10% per year. Not so much that it's a total hardship to deal with a max increase; not so little that landlords have to do max increases every year or get way off market; also not so little that a landlord can't catch up later if they purposefully lag on increases to keep a preferred tenant.

BeFlatXIII 3y ago

…and why should the current residents of Stockholm give a toss about the people who aren't there but want to move in and drive up prices?

jrockway 3y ago
Because of economies of scale, the incremental increase in tax revenue that a new resident provides is more money than it costs to have one more resident in the city.
IncreasePosts 3y ago
I don't think anyone said they should. However, to the extent that the housing policies are determined by larger-than-local government agencies, there shouldn't be some citizens getting a large benefit and similar citizens getting the shaft.