3 ms·

> > You cannot realistically build enough so that the rents decrease. > I'm curious what makes you think this. > Suppose you built twice as many housing units

by jjav 2y ago

> > You cannot realistically build enough so that the rents decrease. > I'm curious what makes you think this. > Suppose you built twice as many housing units as you had residents. Rents wouldn't decrease? Why not? It seems entirely logical that rents should decrease. Not the OP but I do always question this, despite sounding logical. Why? Because it has never worked that way in practice. Can you think of a city that built so much housing that rents became cheap (relative to local income)? It's easy to say "built twice as many housing units as you had residents" and I agree if you could do that overnight, rents would free-fall. But in practice it would take years to build so much housing. Meanwhile, more and more people and jobs are moving in, attracted by all that new housing. The area becomes ever more popular and more expensive. So you end up with a city that is more vibrant, with a lot more people and a lot more jobs and economic activity. All good things, but rents don't go down, given all this success rents go up.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Can you think of a city that built so much housing that rents became cheap (relative to local income)? Most cities with a declining population. They built more housing than they needed, then people moved out, so now housing costs there are low. It's hard to find other examples of places that have built too much housing, because there is no market incentive to do that. In practice the best you can do is prevent there from being too little. But the areas with less restrictive zoning do have lower housing costs. Houston metro, not very restrictive zoning: Per capita income: $68,344 Median home price: $192,500 Riverside metro, California zoning: Per capita income: $50,407 Median home price: $393,000 > Meanwhile, more and more people and jobs are moving in, attracted by all that new housing. The area becomes ever more popular and more expensive. It isn't the housing that attracts them, it's jobs etc. The housing is then needed to give them somewhere to live, or you get California. In some ways having more people will create more jobs and attract more people, but the idea that it's not possible to keep up with demand is just defeatism. You can't build a million new units overnight but neither do a million new people move in overnight, and even if they did, you would then be better off to build a million new units over five or ten years than to not do this. Whereas the argument is simply that building the units should not be prohibited. You obviously don't need a law against it if your actual problem was people not doing it fast enough, right?

by jjav 2y ago

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> Can you think of a city that built so much housing that rents became cheap (relative to local income)? Most cities with a declining population. They built more housing than they needed, then people moved out, so now housing costs there are low. It's hard to find other examples of places that have built too much housing, because there is no market incentive to do that. In practice the best you can do is prevent there from being too little. But the areas with less restrictive zoning do have lower housing costs. Houston metro, not very restrictive zoning: Per capita income: $68,344 Median home price: $192,500 Riverside metro, California zoning: Per capita income: $50,407 Median home price: $393,000 > Meanwhile, more and more people and jobs are moving in, attracted by all that new housing. The area becomes ever more popular and more expensive. It isn't the housing that attracts them, it's jobs etc. The housing is then needed to give them somewhere to live, or you get California. In some ways having more people will create more jobs and attract more people, but the idea that it's not possible to keep up with demand is just defeatism. You can't build a million new units overnight but neither do a million new people move in overnight, and even if they did, you would then be better off to build a million new units over five or ten years than to not do this. Whereas the argument is simply that building the units should not be prohibited. You obviously don't need a law against it if your actual problem was people not doing it fast enough, right?