4 ms·

I'd love to see the data on this. Usually when you increase construction costs, via additional regulation, you're going to increase the price of rent/sale. Wha

by itake 2y ago

I'd love to see the data on this. Usually when you increase construction costs, via additional regulation, you're going to increase the price of rent/sale. What expert thinks increasing costs will lower prices?

toomuchtodo 2y ago
It's the other way around. Regulation around pricing forces housing providers to provide housing within a constrained cost model (land + materials + labor + cost of capital + permitting/AHJ requirements [regulation]). If they cannot meet the market (or choose not to, for whatever reason), public housing is an option, with muni bonds issued to finance construction. This removes the profit component, which a for profit enterprise needs, but public housing does not.
- itake 2y ago
  where does the public housing come from? WA and CA can't seem to figure out how to build public housing. In WA, the best I've seen is the gov buying hotels and having the hotel sit empty for years [0]. If regulations make it impossible to build housing and public housing has the same regulations, who is paying that bill? The existing residents via sales and property taxes? you can google construction costs in sf. how does regulations reduce any of those numbers? [0] - https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/king-county-taxpayers-paying-roughly-330k-month-empty-hotel-renton/ZKZ7IE4QANDW3M2XUFJB55YBYU/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/king-county-taxpayers-payin...
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    Washington has at least done a better job than San Francisco. Seattle has built over twice (IIRC three) times as many homes per-capita than SF over the last decade, despite lower population. The fact that rent control is banned statewide has a big role to play there.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      It's not "despite" lower population. The thing that drives the costs up isn't evil landlords or the dreaded "profit motive". It's just demand massively outstripping supply, and high wages.

by itake 2y ago

toomuchtodo 2y ago

It's the other way around. Regulation around pricing forces housing providers to provide housing within a constrained cost model (land + materials + labor + cost of capital + permitting/AHJ requirements [regulation]). If they cannot meet the market (or choose not to, for whatever reason), public housing is an option, with muni bonds issued to finance construction. This removes the profit component, which a for profit enterprise needs, but public housing does not.

itake 2y ago
where does the public housing come from? WA and CA can't seem to figure out how to build public housing. In WA, the best I've seen is the gov buying hotels and having the hotel sit empty for years [0]. If regulations make it impossible to build housing and public housing has the same regulations, who is paying that bill? The existing residents via sales and property taxes? you can google construction costs in sf. how does regulations reduce any of those numbers? [0] - https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/king-county-taxpayers-paying-roughly-330k-month-empty-hotel-renton/ZKZ7IE4QANDW3M2XUFJB55YBYU/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/king-county-taxpayers-payin...
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  Washington has at least done a better job than San Francisco. Seattle has built over twice (IIRC three) times as many homes per-capita than SF over the last decade, despite lower population. The fact that rent control is banned statewide has a big role to play there.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    It's not "despite" lower population. The thing that drives the costs up isn't evil landlords or the dreaded "profit motive". It's just demand massively outstripping supply, and high wages.