4 ms·

To decrease rent, increase supply. This isn't complicated.

CoastalCoder 2y ago
> To decrease rent, increase supply. This isn't complicated. I wonder. If it's that simple, do you have a theory for why it's not the go-to solution that gets implemented? And, is it true that every solution requires increased supply? E.g., is migration, or changes in job location, not an option?
- ls612 2y ago
  As long as population continues to increase, if you want the same living conditions as your parents on similar economic terms supply will need to increase.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  Because many people's largest investment in life is their home, in countries like the US and Canada where this issue is prevalent. More supply can reduce the value of that asset, so people fight it, especially if they have financially planned for that asset to appreciate over time
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    I believe that the fight is more by developers than residents. It's a zoning outcome, after all, and most people, I suspect, don't keep on top of that being too busy with the lives
    - aprilthird2021 2y ago
      Maybe you are right. I live in the bay area and people here who lucked out buying a house in a normal time at a normal value have nothing to do but show up at all sorts of public hearings, meetings, etc. and shout down any kind of new development
      - readthenotes1 2y ago
        Heh. I almost believe NIMBY was invented by a bay area resident...
- lalaland1125 2y ago
  > If it's that simple, do you have a theory for why it's not the go-to solution that gets implemented? Most of the voting population are homeowners who have a vested financial interest in the cost of housing always going up. So anything that makes housing cheaper is politically difficult.
  - MostlyStable 2y ago
    I'm actually willing to be more charitable than that. For many homeowners, less restricted zoning and construction would actually increase the value of the land by more than it would decrease the value of the dwelling (imagine converting a few single family homes into a multi-story apartment building, that's a _much_ more valuable use of the land). So, at least in some cases, it isn't entirely about their own personal enrichment. Lots of people do have honest desires to not see the "character" of the neighborhood change. Now, I personally think that A) a static neighborhood is a slowly dying neighborhood and B) when almost every neighborhood acts this way the cumulative negative effects on society quickly become profound, but I can at least understand why, and can see the impulse as not an entirely selfish one. It's just naive and short sighted.
    - packetlost 2y ago
      > For many homeowners, less restricted zoning and construction would actually increase the value of the land by more than it would decrease the value of the dwelling (imagine converting a few single family homes into a multi-story apartment building, that's a _much_ more valuable use of the land). But a huge chunk of them don't think that way and they want to maintain the "character of the neighborhood." I've seen this first hand multiple times. My own grandparents once tried to argue with me against any sort of expansion because it would mean some people would be effected and have to change their lifestyle or pay for changes as a result of, for example, expanding city sewer services.
- refurb 2y ago
  One issue is widespread opposition to new construction. So in order for politicians to help one segment of society (renters) they risk upsetting another segment (communities who oppose new construction). But right now there are two cities where an increase in supply has soften rents - Oakland and Toronto.

> To decrease rent, increase supply. This isn't complicated. I wonder. If it's that simple, do you have a theory for why it's not the go-to solution that gets implemented? And, is it true that every solution requires increased supply? E.g., is migration, or changes in job location, not an option?

ls612 2y ago
As long as population continues to increase, if you want the same living conditions as your parents on similar economic terms supply will need to increase.
aprilthird2021 2y ago
Because many people's largest investment in life is their home, in countries like the US and Canada where this issue is prevalent. More supply can reduce the value of that asset, so people fight it, especially if they have financially planned for that asset to appreciate over time
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  I believe that the fight is more by developers than residents. It's a zoning outcome, after all, and most people, I suspect, don't keep on top of that being too busy with the lives
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Maybe you are right. I live in the bay area and people here who lucked out buying a house in a normal time at a normal value have nothing to do but show up at all sorts of public hearings, meetings, etc. and shout down any kind of new development
    - readthenotes1 2y ago
      Heh. I almost believe NIMBY was invented by a bay area resident...
lalaland1125 2y ago
> If it's that simple, do you have a theory for why it's not the go-to solution that gets implemented? Most of the voting population are homeowners who have a vested financial interest in the cost of housing always going up. So anything that makes housing cheaper is politically difficult.
- MostlyStable 2y ago
  I'm actually willing to be more charitable than that. For many homeowners, less restricted zoning and construction would actually increase the value of the land by more than it would decrease the value of the dwelling (imagine converting a few single family homes into a multi-story apartment building, that's a _much_ more valuable use of the land). So, at least in some cases, it isn't entirely about their own personal enrichment. Lots of people do have honest desires to not see the "character" of the neighborhood change. Now, I personally think that A) a static neighborhood is a slowly dying neighborhood and B) when almost every neighborhood acts this way the cumulative negative effects on society quickly become profound, but I can at least understand why, and can see the impulse as not an entirely selfish one. It's just naive and short sighted.
  - packetlost 2y ago
    > For many homeowners, less restricted zoning and construction would actually increase the value of the land by more than it would decrease the value of the dwelling (imagine converting a few single family homes into a multi-story apartment building, that's a _much_ more valuable use of the land). But a huge chunk of them don't think that way and they want to maintain the "character of the neighborhood." I've seen this first hand multiple times. My own grandparents once tried to argue with me against any sort of expansion because it would mean some people would be effected and have to change their lifestyle or pay for changes as a result of, for example, expanding city sewer services.
refurb 2y ago
One issue is widespread opposition to new construction. So in order for politicians to help one segment of society (renters) they risk upsetting another segment (communities who oppose new construction). But right now there are two cities where an increase in supply has soften rents - Oakland and Toronto.