3 ms·

So if the local citizens ban minorities from living there, that's OK with you?

by shiroiushi 2y ago

toomuchtodo 2y ago
This is not a good faith argument, minorities are not a type of housing. Someone’s holiday is not a protected class.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Your argument is bad-faith. Localities vote for zoning regulations, which have the effect of increasing housing prices and keeping (generally poorer) minorities out.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Can you explain how that is relevant to short term rental bans and voters supporting them?
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      My whole point is that short-term rental bans aren't going to fix the fundamental problem, which is the lack of housing supply. It's just a feel-good measure to make politicians look like they're doing something useful, and sticking it to the tourists makes angry locals feel better. The parent comment I initially replied to showed how the math doesn't work: adding housing for ~25k people in a city with 1.6M people isn't going to make some huge difference in housing costs. If you want stable housing prices, the answer is very simple: copy Japan. Stop restricting the construction of new housing units, and fix the regulations so housing developers can build more units for people to live in. It's the same story in cities around the world, except in Japan, because all these other places want to restrict the supply of housing, usually using the argument about local voter's "rights" and their prerogative to make regulations restricting housing. This is exactly what the NIMBYs in the SanFran bay area have been doing, to "protect" their property values, and the result is astronomical housing costs.
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        But that is the problem with your point: it is unlikely that any locale will copy Japan, and increase housing supply in the manner you describe, hence why it isn’t a solution. “You just have to do what no one else will do except this one example.”
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        Then they can sit around and wonder why they're having so many housing problems, and all the social and economic problems that stem from that. The solution is simple, and from what I've read, some places have done some work towards loosening restrictions, with good results.
        kelnos 2y ago
        Then those people and their cities are screwed. They can make lots of noise about banning Airbnb or foreign real estate investment or whatever, but none of that won't solve their problems. There are only two possible solutions: 1. Build lots and lots of new housing, and then supply will meet demand. 2. Find ways to make your city crappier and less appealing, and then demand will drop, making the existing supply sufficient. And that's it. There are no other solutions that will work. San Francisco, for example, seems to be opting for #2, though even that isn't working too well to drop prices. (And I say that as a homeowner here.)
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        SanFran is definitely choosing #2, but the problem for people wanting affordable housing is that there's a ton of inertia that affects real estate prices, so it could take decades to make housing more affordable, unless some kind of collapse event happens. The bay area is still a huge employer in the tech sector, and companies can't just pick up and move on a whim. There's been some action to move away from that area (and California in general) over the last decade but most of it hasn't gone very far for various reasons. So people are still earning huge salaries, and paying enormous sums for rent in the area while having to put up with feces on the sidewalks and boarded-up stores, and this could go on for a long time. But there's probably a lot of other not-so-well-known mid-tier US cities where they don't have the huge inertia provided by the tech sector, and are going to turn into relative ghost towns much faster, as people look for more affordable places to live where there's also good jobs in their sector and a lifestyle or local culture they favor.

So if the local citizens ban minorities from living there, that's OK with you?

toomuchtodo 2y ago

This is not a good faith argument, minorities are not a type of housing. Someone’s holiday is not a protected class.

shiroiushi 2y ago
Your argument is bad-faith. Localities vote for zoning regulations, which have the effect of increasing housing prices and keeping (generally poorer) minorities out.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Can you explain how that is relevant to short term rental bans and voters supporting them?
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    My whole point is that short-term rental bans aren't going to fix the fundamental problem, which is the lack of housing supply. It's just a feel-good measure to make politicians look like they're doing something useful, and sticking it to the tourists makes angry locals feel better. The parent comment I initially replied to showed how the math doesn't work: adding housing for ~25k people in a city with 1.6M people isn't going to make some huge difference in housing costs. If you want stable housing prices, the answer is very simple: copy Japan. Stop restricting the construction of new housing units, and fix the regulations so housing developers can build more units for people to live in. It's the same story in cities around the world, except in Japan, because all these other places want to restrict the supply of housing, usually using the argument about local voter's "rights" and their prerogative to make regulations restricting housing. This is exactly what the NIMBYs in the SanFran bay area have been doing, to "protect" their property values, and the result is astronomical housing costs.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      But that is the problem with your point: it is unlikely that any locale will copy Japan, and increase housing supply in the manner you describe, hence why it isn’t a solution. “You just have to do what no one else will do except this one example.”
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        Then they can sit around and wonder why they're having so many housing problems, and all the social and economic problems that stem from that. The solution is simple, and from what I've read, some places have done some work towards loosening restrictions, with good results.
      - kelnos 2y ago
        Then those people and their cities are screwed. They can make lots of noise about banning Airbnb or foreign real estate investment or whatever, but none of that won't solve their problems. There are only two possible solutions: 1. Build lots and lots of new housing, and then supply will meet demand. 2. Find ways to make your city crappier and less appealing, and then demand will drop, making the existing supply sufficient. And that's it. There are no other solutions that will work. San Francisco, for example, seems to be opting for #2, though even that isn't working too well to drop prices. (And I say that as a homeowner here.)
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        SanFran is definitely choosing #2, but the problem for people wanting affordable housing is that there's a ton of inertia that affects real estate prices, so it could take decades to make housing more affordable, unless some kind of collapse event happens. The bay area is still a huge employer in the tech sector, and companies can't just pick up and move on a whim. There's been some action to move away from that area (and California in general) over the last decade but most of it hasn't gone very far for various reasons. So people are still earning huge salaries, and paying enormous sums for rent in the area while having to put up with feces on the sidewalks and boarded-up stores, and this could go on for a long time. But there's probably a lot of other not-so-well-known mid-tier US cities where they don't have the huge inertia provided by the tech sector, and are going to turn into relative ghost towns much faster, as people look for more affordable places to live where there's also good jobs in their sector and a lifestyle or local culture they favor.