3 ms·

> you've just passed regulations that make building so expensive that it isn't profitable until rents are unreasonably high This is just demonstrably false, th

> you've just passed regulations that make building so expensive that it isn't profitable until rents are unreasonably high This is just demonstrably false, though. Regulation does cause large overhead especially crossing municipal boundaries, but developers aren't building even where they've been approved to build. Either they accepted the work they knew they couldn't deliver under the current regulatory burden (essentially, committing fraud) or the bottleneck isn't regulations at all, but the other costs that dominate building. Anyway, you can either pay off your investment or you can turn a profit. Doing both is just antisocial (ie malicious and harmful) behavior. If you're turning a profit, I better also get an equitable return. That would actually make sense. Of course the world doesn't work like that, but nothing you're explaining helps me understand why this behavior is legal and people don't murder more landlords. This is simply not a reasonable way to divvy up resources in a community.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> developers aren't building even where they've been approved to build. Suppose it costs $100,000 to add each additional housing unit if you could build them in areas that are currently zoned exclusively for single family homes, but they can't because the zoning doesn't allow it. By contrast, in the areas "where they've been approved to build", it would cost $800,000 for each additional unit, and the current market price is $750,000. They're going to sit there and do nothing until the market price gets above $800,000 because otherwise they'd be losing money. If you want to change it you need to make it cost less to add housing units. > Anyway, you can either pay off your investment or you can turn a profit. These are not alternatives to each other. If there is any net profit, it would eventually cause the mortgage to be paid off. If there isn't any, why would anyone pay to build an apartment building?

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> developers aren't building even where they've been approved to build. Suppose it costs $100,000 to add each additional housing unit if you could build them in areas that are currently zoned exclusively for single family homes, but they can't because the zoning doesn't allow it. By contrast, in the areas "where they've been approved to build", it would cost $800,000 for each additional unit, and the current market price is $750,000. They're going to sit there and do nothing until the market price gets above $800,000 because otherwise they'd be losing money. If you want to change it you need to make it cost less to add housing units. > Anyway, you can either pay off your investment or you can turn a profit. These are not alternatives to each other. If there is any net profit, it would eventually cause the mortgage to be paid off. If there isn't any, why would anyone pay to build an apartment building?