3 ms·

While I agree with Zoning being an issue in large cities, the zoning argument doesn't make sense in a city like Flagstaff or St George (which is what the book i

While I agree with Zoning being an issue in large cities, the zoning argument doesn't make sense in a city like Flagstaff or St George (which is what the book is about). These are smallish towns with a largely transient population of tourists. Housing is viewed as an investment in these communities, and most natives will simply never be able to afford purchasing even with expanded zoning because a SWE or Accountsnt working in San Francisco or Phoenix looking for a side hustle will always outcompete a local working in the service industry who's earning $14-20 an hour. The zoning argument makes sense in a city with a large long term population - which is not the type of city Flagstaff, St George, Sedona, or Ojai are. Already if you go to Flagstaff you'll see plenty of massive housing complexes being built, but they are priced at $400-600k and targeted at out-of-state investors (eg. Techies in the Bay Area looking for a side hustle, a holiday home for the winter, etc). At the end of the day, most people on HN are part of the problem, as salaries in tech (even with layoffs and outsourcing) remain miles ahead of other white collar roles, let alone the blue collar or service jobs most Americans ACTUALLY work.

raducu 2y ago
> will always outcompete a local working in the service industry I think non-resident owners should pay something like 10X the taxes a resident owner pays. This whole housing as an "investment" thing is destroying society
- jeffbee 2y ago
  In some countries with less of a housing crisis than ours, it's the opposite. If you buy a house to occupy, you pay a large VAT. If you buy a house to let, you don't. Fetishizing owner-occupancy is the root cause of the American housing crisis. We need to get over the weird belief that something about living in a house you own is morally superior.
  - raducu 2y ago
    I'm not talking (just) about the USA. In my buble people often hoard properties to let but many just hoard them because they can and taxes are (too) low. Someone has an advantage in income, access to financing, reaches a threshold and 10 years later they flip 10 houses, all payed by not so fortunate tenants, and the owner thinks he's some kind of rightous capitalist. The whole rent-seeking behavior is a scourge on society.
    - jeffbee 2y ago
      We don't need a baroque system to fix this, though. Simply taxing rents would do the job.
amazingamazing 2y ago
If there is demand to rent, there’s demand to buy, if there’s demand to buy there’s demand to build. Time and deprecation will do the rest as long as constructions begins now.
pfdietz 2y ago
> Housing is viewed as an investment Found the problem!
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  Unironically it’s the solution. The problem is that no one can make the investment. If housing wasn’t an investment that would imply no returns, and thus no incentive to build and thus far less housing.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Housing would still be built, but not as an asset for which appreciation would be expected. Your argument is like saying that unless cars appreciate in value, no cars would be built.
    - amazingamazing 2y ago
      Cars do not have land which is inherently scarce. A better comparison is an RV, which is indeed rare. Also, I did not say houses wouldn’t be built - I said there would be fewer which is just the truth.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        All else being equal, lower return on houses would result in fewer being built. But all else wouldn't be equal, since regulatory barriers would be removed. Indeed, your notion that houses would be spoiled as an investment, and fewer would be built, are contradictory. The former requires so many are built the market would be saturated, preventing appreciation.
jeffbee 2y ago
Your assertion is that housing demand is insatiable in Flagstaff? How would we know? Like all other American cities the planning code of Flagstaff virtually forbids construction of anything, so it's not as if they've tried to build on the margin and it didn't help. Why does the law of Flagstaff reserve the huge portion of town directly east of downtown for low-density, "R-1" uses where almost nobody lives?
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > housing demand is insatiable in Flagstaff As long as the Grand Canyon, Coconico National Forest, Meteor Crater, and Red Rock State Park remain major tourist destinations absolutely. > Like all other American cities the planning code of Flagstaff virtually forbids construction of anything, so it's not as if they've tried to build on the margin and it didn't help. Flagstaff and Coconico County changed their zoning code as part of the Flagstaff 2045 initiative [0]. Furthermore, much of the CDP land surrounding Flagstaff has been converted into housing - the Kachina Wetlands area, Flagstaff Ranch, Presidio Park, the area around Floxglenn Park, Pine Canyon, etc. These are all recentish expansions (past 10 years) and there are further expansions that have been zoned by Coconico County. Furthermore, within Flagstaff City, multi-unit housing is being developed now using the stick-frame format. All these units are a significant expansion for a small regional town in the middle of nowhere (amazingly beautiful but nowhere nonetheless). All these units are priced at the $400k and above range - which is unaffordable for service workers who tend to earn $14-20/hr and tend to commute significant distances. ----------- Fundamentally, zoning has been simplified but the costs of construction (labor, financing, and of course land) incentivize high value/high margin real estate development. One of my former sparring buddies is MD track (hence no more time to spar) for Real Estate/Construction financing at one of the bulge brackets, and in our conversations, much of the deal flow over the past few years has been flowing towards infra construction because of better margins and significant subsidization by state, local, and federal governments. Commercial and Residential Real Estate just cannot compete with the margins that come with building a fab for Intel or TSMC, as wages, margins, and RoI is much higher. Zoning can help to a certain extent in some highly sought after markets, but in much of America, financing for residential construction just cannot compete with infra financing. [0] - https://flagstaff-regional-plan-2045-flagstaff.hub.arcgis.com/pages/regional-snapshots https://flagstaff-regional-plan-2045-flagstaff.hub.arcgis.co...

raducu 2y ago

> will always outcompete a local working in the service industry I think non-resident owners should pay something like 10X the taxes a resident owner pays. This whole housing as an "investment" thing is destroying society

jeffbee 2y ago
In some countries with less of a housing crisis than ours, it's the opposite. If you buy a house to occupy, you pay a large VAT. If you buy a house to let, you don't. Fetishizing owner-occupancy is the root cause of the American housing crisis. We need to get over the weird belief that something about living in a house you own is morally superior.
- raducu 2y ago
  I'm not talking (just) about the USA. In my buble people often hoard properties to let but many just hoard them because they can and taxes are (too) low. Someone has an advantage in income, access to financing, reaches a threshold and 10 years later they flip 10 houses, all payed by not so fortunate tenants, and the owner thinks he's some kind of rightous capitalist. The whole rent-seeking behavior is a scourge on society.
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    We don't need a baroque system to fix this, though. Simply taxing rents would do the job.

amazingamazing 2y ago

If there is demand to rent, there’s demand to buy, if there’s demand to buy there’s demand to build. Time and deprecation will do the rest as long as constructions begins now.

pfdietz 2y ago

> Housing is viewed as an investment Found the problem!

amazingamazing 2y ago
Unironically it’s the solution. The problem is that no one can make the investment. If housing wasn’t an investment that would imply no returns, and thus no incentive to build and thus far less housing.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Housing would still be built, but not as an asset for which appreciation would be expected. Your argument is like saying that unless cars appreciate in value, no cars would be built.
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    Cars do not have land which is inherently scarce. A better comparison is an RV, which is indeed rare. Also, I did not say houses wouldn’t be built - I said there would be fewer which is just the truth.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      All else being equal, lower return on houses would result in fewer being built. But all else wouldn't be equal, since regulatory barriers would be removed. Indeed, your notion that houses would be spoiled as an investment, and fewer would be built, are contradictory. The former requires so many are built the market would be saturated, preventing appreciation.

jeffbee 2y ago

Your assertion is that housing demand is insatiable in Flagstaff? How would we know? Like all other American cities the planning code of Flagstaff virtually forbids construction of anything, so it's not as if they've tried to build on the margin and it didn't help. Why does the law of Flagstaff reserve the huge portion of town directly east of downtown for low-density, "R-1" uses where almost nobody lives?

alephnerd 2y ago
> housing demand is insatiable in Flagstaff As long as the Grand Canyon, Coconico National Forest, Meteor Crater, and Red Rock State Park remain major tourist destinations absolutely. > Like all other American cities the planning code of Flagstaff virtually forbids construction of anything, so it's not as if they've tried to build on the margin and it didn't help. Flagstaff and Coconico County changed their zoning code as part of the Flagstaff 2045 initiative [0]. Furthermore, much of the CDP land surrounding Flagstaff has been converted into housing - the Kachina Wetlands area, Flagstaff Ranch, Presidio Park, the area around Floxglenn Park, Pine Canyon, etc. These are all recentish expansions (past 10 years) and there are further expansions that have been zoned by Coconico County. Furthermore, within Flagstaff City, multi-unit housing is being developed now using the stick-frame format. All these units are a significant expansion for a small regional town in the middle of nowhere (amazingly beautiful but nowhere nonetheless). All these units are priced at the $400k and above range - which is unaffordable for service workers who tend to earn $14-20/hr and tend to commute significant distances. ----------- Fundamentally, zoning has been simplified but the costs of construction (labor, financing, and of course land) incentivize high value/high margin real estate development. One of my former sparring buddies is MD track (hence no more time to spar) for Real Estate/Construction financing at one of the bulge brackets, and in our conversations, much of the deal flow over the past few years has been flowing towards infra construction because of better margins and significant subsidization by state, local, and federal governments. Commercial and Residential Real Estate just cannot compete with the margins that come with building a fab for Intel or TSMC, as wages, margins, and RoI is much higher. Zoning can help to a certain extent in some highly sought after markets, but in much of America, financing for residential construction just cannot compete with infra financing. [0] - https://flagstaff-regional-plan-2045-flagstaff.hub.arcgis.com/pages/regional-snapshots https://flagstaff-regional-plan-2045-flagstaff.hub.arcgis.co...