3 ms·

You had it there for a minute, but... The potential profitability of converting a tower is something only the buyer should be concerned with, not the government

You had it there for a minute, but... The potential profitability of converting a tower is something only the buyer should be concerned with, not the government. The reasons to not convert a tower =! The reasons to change zoning, which could reasonably include concerns over traffic or appearance.

thfuran 3y ago
>The potential profitability of converting a tower is something only the buyer should be concerned with, not the government. I have no idea how you could possibly hold such a position, so I'm not really sure what to say. Do you think incentives don't matter? Do you think the government doesn't already heavily involve itself in real estate pricing beyond just zoning via numerous regulatory means and subsidies? Do you think that what gets built in a jurisdiction just isn't its government's concern?
- Geisterde 3y ago
  I am equally clueless as to how you came up with this line of questions. Of course incentives matter, when did I imply they didnt? Of course the government is involved, which is why I said the reasons for not converting a building (the buyer) arent the same reasons why you wouldnt rezone (government), something there not clear?
- LightHugger 3y ago
  You're a bit confused about how this works. If the gov changes an area with office buildings to mixed zoning then some will be converted and some wont because of cost. Market forces can decide what's cost effective in that case. It does not matter that some will not be cost effective to convert. There is also no damage done if magically none of them get converted...
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >If the gov changes an area with office buildings to mixed zoning then some will be converted and some wont because of cost. Unless, because of the costs, none of them are. And while that does no harm, if the purpose of changing the zoning was to get more housing, then it also does no good. The profitability of the conversion absolutely should be a consideration, because a tax abatement or something could effect change where simply altering zoning might not.
    - michaelcampbell 3y ago
      You're arguing the wrong direction, I think. If the gov does not change zoning restrictions to something less restrictive, then the work will, by law, not be possible. If they do, then it's POSSIBLE, but it's not up to gov't to MANDATE it. Arguing that they shouldn't "loosen" the restrictions because the market _MIGHT_ determine it's still not worthwhile seems odd to me. Perhaps this is from a cultural bias. The point of the article wasn't to make more housing required, it was to make it possible to do so. Perhaps in other countries/cultures/governments the incentives are different (market vs. gov), but this article is not that.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        >but it's not up to gov't to MANDATE it. >Arguing that they shouldn't "loosen" the restrictions because the market _MIGHT_ determine it's still not worthwhile Neither of those arguments are being made. The argument being made is that if the government intends to effect change in the housing market, it must concern itself with the economics, because those economics are largely determined by government policy and determine whether new housing is actually likely to get built.
        Geisterde 3y ago
        Once upon a time in new york, people built bleechers on their roofs to watch baseball games. Neighbors would potluck or sell home cooked food. There was enough housing for everyone, because they had very loose regulations. If you really want to turn this into a multiday thread, then we can start with the different theorems of value; you will come to see how even theory proves it is a terrible idea to have government trying to manage for profit endeavors. But, if you just want the magic fix to the housing shortage, you should just run with deregulation.

thfuran 3y ago

>The potential profitability of converting a tower is something only the buyer should be concerned with, not the government. I have no idea how you could possibly hold such a position, so I'm not really sure what to say. Do you think incentives don't matter? Do you think the government doesn't already heavily involve itself in real estate pricing beyond just zoning via numerous regulatory means and subsidies? Do you think that what gets built in a jurisdiction just isn't its government's concern?

Geisterde 3y ago
I am equally clueless as to how you came up with this line of questions. Of course incentives matter, when did I imply they didnt? Of course the government is involved, which is why I said the reasons for not converting a building (the buyer) arent the same reasons why you wouldnt rezone (government), something there not clear?
LightHugger 3y ago
You're a bit confused about how this works. If the gov changes an area with office buildings to mixed zoning then some will be converted and some wont because of cost. Market forces can decide what's cost effective in that case. It does not matter that some will not be cost effective to convert. There is also no damage done if magically none of them get converted...
- thfuran 3y ago
  >If the gov changes an area with office buildings to mixed zoning then some will be converted and some wont because of cost. Unless, because of the costs, none of them are. And while that does no harm, if the purpose of changing the zoning was to get more housing, then it also does no good. The profitability of the conversion absolutely should be a consideration, because a tax abatement or something could effect change where simply altering zoning might not.
  - michaelcampbell 3y ago
    You're arguing the wrong direction, I think. If the gov does not change zoning restrictions to something less restrictive, then the work will, by law, not be possible. If they do, then it's POSSIBLE, but it's not up to gov't to MANDATE it. Arguing that they shouldn't "loosen" the restrictions because the market _MIGHT_ determine it's still not worthwhile seems odd to me. Perhaps this is from a cultural bias. The point of the article wasn't to make more housing required, it was to make it possible to do so. Perhaps in other countries/cultures/governments the incentives are different (market vs. gov), but this article is not that.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      >but it's not up to gov't to MANDATE it. >Arguing that they shouldn't "loosen" the restrictions because the market _MIGHT_ determine it's still not worthwhile Neither of those arguments are being made. The argument being made is that if the government intends to effect change in the housing market, it must concern itself with the economics, because those economics are largely determined by government policy and determine whether new housing is actually likely to get built.
      - Geisterde 3y ago
        Once upon a time in new york, people built bleechers on their roofs to watch baseball games. Neighbors would potluck or sell home cooked food. There was enough housing for everyone, because they had very loose regulations. If you really want to turn this into a multiday thread, then we can start with the different theorems of value; you will come to see how even theory proves it is a terrible idea to have government trying to manage for profit endeavors. But, if you just want the magic fix to the housing shortage, you should just run with deregulation.