5 ms·

Talking about "cost of living" in a place like Seattle, as if it were an ordinary economic issue, masks the real problem, which is that liberal US cities have m

Talking about "cost of living" in a place like Seattle, as if it were an ordinary economic issue, masks the real problem, which is that liberal US cities have made it very difficult to construct new housing. If a million families want to live in a city, and the city only allows half a million houses to be built, then a lot of people are going to be forced out. It's not a question of economics, it's a simple question of arithmetic. It doesn't matter how much you pay people or what minimum wage you have or what other policies you enact. It's like a giant game of musical chairs - if there are more people than chairs, it doesn't matter what else you do, because someone's going to wind up without a chair. Increase salaries, and rents go up to compensate. Subsidize housing for the poor, and landlords will charge more. Enact rent control, and watch as everyone converts rental buildings into super expensive condos. It's like trying to squeeze Jell-O to death: you can't beat the fundamental law that, if there are houses for X people, only X people can live there.

sharkweek 11y ago
Oof don't get me started. I like to consider myself a regular at my neighborhood council's meetings (NE Seattle). When the city shows up to present development plans, only older generations who feel somewhat entitled to their neighborhood's "culture" show up and berate the plans. At the last one, some lady was pissed because a new apartment building might block partial sunlight in her yard, which is apparently more important than 400 market priced units becoming available in a city starved for housing. Then these same people get upset at Amazon (I have no affiliation) for bringing in tech money and causing a massive housing shortage. They then allow their short term memories to forget what a shithole South Lake Union was before Amazon bought and developed on the land.
- Vexs 11y ago
  There's an entire economic theory that progress only happens when the older generation dies off. A bit grim, but I can believe it. There's a subdivision near my house that allows only 55+, and anytime anyone wants to do anything it's a massive shitshow. They stalled a much needed bond for a local highschool for two years (during which said highschool got really, really overcrowded) and actually ran insane smear campaigns against the school board. Not fun.
  - cortesoft 11y ago
    That seems like it wouldn't work... I mean, a fraction of the 'older generation' dies off every day.... and a few new people join the 'older generation' as they age. Now, I can imagine saying things like "The progress will only happen once all the people who grew up with things being the old way die off," especially with things like interracial or gay marriage, but I don't think that applies to something like housing. Whoever owns the current houses will never want more houses built; that will only drive down the value of their property. It may be true that the people who own those homes are usually older, but that will not end when they 'die off'.
    - Vexs 11y ago
      You're absolutely correct; I quoted a gross oversimplification of the theory. It's more to do with per generation than actual old people, and people are always protective of home value. Consider, however, that when an elderly person dies their assets,in this case houses, are usually sold off, which might be enough for a builder. It's not the core tenant of my argument, but it's something I'd never thought of before.
gohrt 11y ago
There's no need to toss "liberal" in there. Dense cities tend to have rent-control, and Dense cities tend to have people with policies generally referred to as "liberal" (to the extent that "liberal" means anything. But NIMBYism and status-quoism is not just a liberal issue, and "not changing the neighborhood" is right in line with the definition of "conservative", which means a preference for how things already are and against risky changes. Trying to squeeze any question into a "liberal-conservative" split just muddies the issue.
- a3voices 11y ago
  Well liberals often favor regulations and licenses for everything, and these prevent or delay new housing from being constructed.
- _yosefk 11y ago
  Dictionary definitions of words are usually not very close to the use of these words in political contexts. Regardless of dictionary definitions, if we agree that building restrictions are a bad policy, it is a valid and IMO interesting empirical question whether most people supporting it self-identify as liberal, conservative or something else. (I honestly don't think I could guess the answer.)
  - scarmig 11y ago
    My guess is that stated support for the prototypical bad housing policies we love to hate would be pretty constant throughout the political spectrum (though that's just a guess). The issue is that that in BFN no one cares about rent control or constructing new buildings because housing is so cheap and space is so plentiful; only in places where housing is expensive and space is scarce do those issues get any political salience. And since those tend to be more liberal areas, we ascribe "liberal" to those policies as a descriptor.
- Kalium 11y ago
  Liberal here. Yeah, there really is a need to toss "liberal" in there. More liberal dense cities seem to have this problem much worse than dense less-liberal cities. Qualifier: American cities. Some of it tends to be due to liberal reflexes (participatory democracy at all levels, favoring small local groups of activists over people who stand to profit, etc.) that backfire writ large. Add in a distrust of markets, and you have a recipe for disaster. San Francisco is a great example.
scarmig 11y ago
Coastal cities aren't expensive because of bad housing policy (though they certainly have that). They're expensive because lots of highly economically productive people and companies are located in them.
- a3voices 11y ago
  I disagree. They're expensive because there's not enough high rises that would provide tons more housing space.
  - scarmig 11y ago
    Which has more high rises: Buffalo or NYC? I'd argue you're mostly getting cause and effect backwards: places end up with lots of high rises because they're the most economically productive localities. Obviously at the margin another high rise will lower prices a bit, but the rate at which we'd be able to build them in SF sans restrictions would at most keep prices stable year-on-year. Which isn't nothing, but it's important to be clear that no one making, say, $80k a year will ever be able to purchase a house or condo in San Francisco, regardless of our policy choices.
    - zck 11y ago
      >...the rate at which we'd be able to build them in SF sans restrictions would at most keep prices stable year-on-year. Do you have any citations for this? It's unexpected to me. What's the limiting factor?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - mrkurt 11y ago
      There are lots of places either similarly, or more dense than San Francisco with housing people can buy on an $80k salary. All of these places allow for higher density housing. Sure SF is way behind the curve at this point, but it's a bit silly to argue that "policy debt" is a reason policy changes wouldn't do much.

sharkweek 11y ago

Oof don't get me started. I like to consider myself a regular at my neighborhood council's meetings (NE Seattle). When the city shows up to present development plans, only older generations who feel somewhat entitled to their neighborhood's "culture" show up and berate the plans. At the last one, some lady was pissed because a new apartment building might block partial sunlight in her yard, which is apparently more important than 400 market priced units becoming available in a city starved for housing. Then these same people get upset at Amazon (I have no affiliation) for bringing in tech money and causing a massive housing shortage. They then allow their short term memories to forget what a shithole South Lake Union was before Amazon bought and developed on the land.

Vexs 11y ago
There's an entire economic theory that progress only happens when the older generation dies off. A bit grim, but I can believe it. There's a subdivision near my house that allows only 55+, and anytime anyone wants to do anything it's a massive shitshow. They stalled a much needed bond for a local highschool for two years (during which said highschool got really, really overcrowded) and actually ran insane smear campaigns against the school board. Not fun.
- cortesoft 11y ago
  That seems like it wouldn't work... I mean, a fraction of the 'older generation' dies off every day.... and a few new people join the 'older generation' as they age. Now, I can imagine saying things like "The progress will only happen once all the people who grew up with things being the old way die off," especially with things like interracial or gay marriage, but I don't think that applies to something like housing. Whoever owns the current houses will never want more houses built; that will only drive down the value of their property. It may be true that the people who own those homes are usually older, but that will not end when they 'die off'.
  - Vexs 11y ago
    You're absolutely correct; I quoted a gross oversimplification of the theory. It's more to do with per generation than actual old people, and people are always protective of home value. Consider, however, that when an elderly person dies their assets,in this case houses, are usually sold off, which might be enough for a builder. It's not the core tenant of my argument, but it's something I'd never thought of before.

gohrt 11y ago

There's no need to toss "liberal" in there. Dense cities tend to have rent-control, and Dense cities tend to have people with policies generally referred to as "liberal" (to the extent that "liberal" means anything. But NIMBYism and status-quoism is not just a liberal issue, and "not changing the neighborhood" is right in line with the definition of "conservative", which means a preference for how things already are and against risky changes. Trying to squeeze any question into a "liberal-conservative" split just muddies the issue.

a3voices 11y ago
Well liberals often favor regulations and licenses for everything, and these prevent or delay new housing from being constructed.
_yosefk 11y ago
Dictionary definitions of words are usually not very close to the use of these words in political contexts. Regardless of dictionary definitions, if we agree that building restrictions are a bad policy, it is a valid and IMO interesting empirical question whether most people supporting it self-identify as liberal, conservative or something else. (I honestly don't think I could guess the answer.)
- scarmig 11y ago
  My guess is that stated support for the prototypical bad housing policies we love to hate would be pretty constant throughout the political spectrum (though that's just a guess). The issue is that that in BFN no one cares about rent control or constructing new buildings because housing is so cheap and space is so plentiful; only in places where housing is expensive and space is scarce do those issues get any political salience. And since those tend to be more liberal areas, we ascribe "liberal" to those policies as a descriptor.
Kalium 11y ago
Liberal here. Yeah, there really is a need to toss "liberal" in there. More liberal dense cities seem to have this problem much worse than dense less-liberal cities. Qualifier: American cities. Some of it tends to be due to liberal reflexes (participatory democracy at all levels, favoring small local groups of activists over people who stand to profit, etc.) that backfire writ large. Add in a distrust of markets, and you have a recipe for disaster. San Francisco is a great example.

scarmig 11y ago

Coastal cities aren't expensive because of bad housing policy (though they certainly have that). They're expensive because lots of highly economically productive people and companies are located in them.

a3voices 11y ago
I disagree. They're expensive because there's not enough high rises that would provide tons more housing space.
- scarmig 11y ago
  Which has more high rises: Buffalo or NYC? I'd argue you're mostly getting cause and effect backwards: places end up with lots of high rises because they're the most economically productive localities. Obviously at the margin another high rise will lower prices a bit, but the rate at which we'd be able to build them in SF sans restrictions would at most keep prices stable year-on-year. Which isn't nothing, but it's important to be clear that no one making, say, $80k a year will ever be able to purchase a house or condo in San Francisco, regardless of our policy choices.
  - zck 11y ago
    >...the rate at which we'd be able to build them in SF sans restrictions would at most keep prices stable year-on-year. Do you have any citations for this? It's unexpected to me. What's the limiting factor?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - mrkurt 11y ago
    There are lots of places either similarly, or more dense than San Francisco with housing people can buy on an $80k salary. All of these places allow for higher density housing. Sure SF is way behind the curve at this point, but it's a bit silly to argue that "policy debt" is a reason policy changes wouldn't do much.