|
anthonypants posted:Except we're in a housing crisis, so what we actually need to do is waive taxes on real estate developers and repeal regulations, because otherwise no one would develop more housing. Yeah agreed (to a point- totally open regulation would be terrible and create a new Vegas suburban wasteland of empty housing), but it's worth it to think about how the only people not profiting right now are those without a home at all. Everyone else is raking- developers, sellers, flippers, and especially realtors.
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
Meydey posted:I have a friend who has a house in Pacific that he cannot sell. The only way he will get out of it is if the lahar takes it out. well yeah, it's pacific/algona. i used to work there and while there wasnt much violent crime it's certainly not a nice area.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Except we're in a housing crisis, so what we actually need to do is waive taxes on real estate developers and repeal regulations, because otherwise no one would develop more housing. So create an exemption if the property is sold to developer who will redevelop into low income housing. Otherwise, stick a nice 1 or 2% sales tax on real estate transfers and use that to create an affordable housing fund. I'm pretty sure your response was sarcastic, so I don't know why I'm responding, but the regulations and taxes aren't stopping any development, it's just that what's being built is being sold to the wealthy. Edit: Drunk Tomato posted:Yeah agreed (to a point- totally open regulation would be terrible and create a new Vegas suburban wasteland of empty housing), but it's worth it to think about how the only people not profiting right now are those without a home at all. Everyone else is raking- developers, sellers, flippers, and especially realtors. You're funny. Taxes and regulation aren't the problem. It's the fact that everything being built is being built for the wealthy.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
xrunner posted:So create an exemption if the property is sold to developer who will redevelop into low income housing.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:The way these things actually work is the local government will say "you need to devote 30% of your property to low-income housing after x years" and the developer will sign that contract and then ignore it. After x years they will renegotiate and/or sue and win, because the local government is completely terrified of upsetting property developers. Yeah. I'm familiar with how it's working now. I don't think local government is capable of doing what needs to be done without changes in state law. I also don't see how it's a bad thing to tax the gently caress out of development to fund affordable housing. Portland is exploding with development at the moment, and it's all high end. Arguing that taxes and regulations are creating the current housing crunch is really dumb. There's plenty of development, it's just being built for the wrong people. So, boo-hoo if we start skimming some of the massive profits being made right now and using it for better things than lining the pockets of some rear end in a top hat developer/general contractor who probably lives in Vancouver or further away. Same to the dickstraws that bought property on Division or whatever 30 years ago and want to boo-hoo about how this is their retirement investment. If your retirement investment means screwing other people, maybe you need to reconsider your retirement plans.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
xrunner posted:Arguing that taxes and regulations are creating the current housing crunch is really dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:I might need to point out that I do actually agree with you on this point; my post from earlier was a sarcastic outline of current policy. Trickle-down applied to real estate is the loving worst, and unfortunately Portland's next mayor/city council isn't going to change anything. Yeah. I figured as much. I hear these arguments made unironically by people I know, though, so they get me heated. What happens w/r/t housing and also homelessness is probably the most important thing the next mayor/council will deal with. They have to decide if we want to keep changing in the wrong direction (I'm under no illusions that Portland was some utopia before the recent rash of development started, but we're definitely going the wrong direction). As it stands, in five years we'll be almost all the way to being a wonderful little progressive utopia (if you're white and earn a middle income or higher). Edit: I mean, how many people do you know these days who claim they're "super progressive" but also think homelessness is mostly a matter of "street kids" taking advantage of the system? Maybe I just work with and know crappy people, but from where I stand, people seem a lot more concerned about inequality between the haves and the have-a-bit-less-than-the-haves than they are about the haves and the have-nots. HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 19:02 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
xrunner posted:You're funny. Taxes and regulation aren't the problem. It's the fact that everything being built is being built for the wealthy. In a supply constrained environment, of course developers target the high end; why wouldn't they? If Toyota was restricted to selling 10,000 cars per year, they'd all be Lexuses, no question. Besides, affordable housing for the working class has nearly always just been old housing; it used to be high end, but now isn't. If you look at where the problem is even worse than the PacNW, California, the data is pretty clear: they need more supply, and more supply actually *reduces* displacement. What, you think if those luxury condos don't get built, the rich just go away? No, they compete for the next best housing on the market. Call it the 'stomping down' effect. We've seen how anti-development policies work out in SF, which is horribly. All the non-affluent who didn't get lucky by getting under rent control early or winning a BMR unit lottery have been pushed out. I grew up in the bay area and it's pretty frustrating to see stupid NIMBY policies push people out, even people with pretty good jobs. quote:I'm under no illusions that Portland was some utopia before the recent rash of development started, but we're definitely going the wrong direction The developers themselves recognize this, just see how one of their journals talks about 'market weakness' because of thousands of new units coming on the market in Seattle: quote:It's not demand that has Seattle apartment landlords worried. It's supply. But let me guess, developers just don't understand the basics of how to make money in their own business? Cicero fucked around with this message at 19:12 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Cicero posted:How many times do we have to explain this? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:You're an idiot, so it will probably take a very long time and a lot of repetition to get you to understand the real-world applications of economics. Housing supply and demand is the climate change denial of the left. Pretty much all the data supports one side: to reduce prices, or at least constrain how quickly they rise, you increase supply. If you wanna do that with huge public housing developments financed by taxes (hopefully mixed income and better managed this time around) that's fine too. But absent that, private development is your only option. Cicero fucked around with this message at 19:17 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Cicero posted:You're right, you should probably inform the California Legislative Analyst's Office and those developer associations that they don't know how real estate works. Clearly SF has been a great victory for keeping rent prices sane and reasonable, how could I not see it before?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Here is your first lesson: In a Captalist system, the goal isn't to drive prices down. It's actually to increase profit! I know this must come as a shock, so please allow yourself some time off to perform research on your own. Almost like healthy competition between companies keeps profits and prices down to a reasonable level! If only there was a way to have more competition between providers of housing. Alas! edit: quote:But what about all the people, surely a large majority, who are being priced out of America’s urban revival? Does it have to be that way? Oh man, that silly right-wing neolib Paul Krugman agrees with the developers, what a sellout! Cicero fucked around with this message at 19:26 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Cicero posted:How many times do we have to explain this? How many times do we have to respond to this. This is a favorite argument among my "progressive" friends. It's also bullshit. "We need more housing supply so why not just let developers develop luxury units" is easily answered with "why don't we force developers who build luxury units to also build affordable housing." Sure, pure rent control doesn't work, and not developing just exacerbates the shortage, these are points that I agree with. But a strong, state enforced mandate to provide affordable units in new development will open up space (as opposed to the already mocked and ineffective contractual agreements with the city). Let the wealthiest compete and bid up the price of the most desirable parcels. The market can bear it. But at that same time keep units affordable for the rest of the population. I will be absolutely clear in stating that infill and development are essential to the growth of this city unless we want to give up stuff like the growth boundary (which is an amazing policy that the rest of the nation should look into). But there is no reason that this development has to focus entirely on where the most money can be made. Sure, given their druthers, developers would rather build exclusively for the segment that can pay the most, but as a society, we don't have to let them. If you really think that cutting into that profit will kill all development forever, then I guess I'm at a loss. I'm not talking about mandating 90% of all units be affordable, after all. In the absence of changes in state law, the least we can do is suck some of the fat off of the boom and redirect that money to housing relief and other worthy causes. What, do you think a real property sales tax will kill the housing market? Will it make developers and the wealthy, to use your words, "just go away?"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
xrunner posted:How many times do we have to respond to this. This is a favorite argument among my "progressive" friends. It's also bullshit. "We need more housing supply so why not just let developers develop luxury units" is easily answered with "why don't we force developers who build luxury units to also build affordable housing." Sure, pure rent control doesn't work, and not developing just exacerbates the shortage, these are points that I agree with. But a strong, state enforced mandate to provide affordable units in new development will open up space (as opposed to the already mocked and ineffective contractual agreements with the city). Let the wealthiest compete and bid up the price of the most desirable parcels. The market can bear it. But at that same time keep units affordable for the rest of the population. At the same time, we need to stop allowing the tantrums of established NIMBYs from preventing further development because "those buildings look ugly" or "my precious neighborhood character".
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Wow, amazing! Is that why the price of cars and phones and food is ever-rising, year after year, and all companies in those industries make ever-record profits? Oh wait, that doesn't happen, because the real world isn't a leftist stereotype of how KKKapitalism works. Weird! *I have helpfully pasted that quote here! Cicero posted:How many times do we have to explain this?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:At the same time, we need to stop allowing the tantrums of established NIMBYs from preventing further development because "those buildings look ugly" or "my precious neighborhood character". I couldn't agree more. In-fill and density are a really important part of the solution. But just doing in-fill and density without also mandating affordability does not solve the problem. It just changes the character of the city without benefiting the current residents. San Francisco, Seattle, Manhattan, etc... are all good lessons to pay attention to, but we need to make sure we're learning the right things.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
xrunner posted:How many times do we have to respond to this. This is a favorite argument among my "progressive" friends. It's also bullshit. "We need more housing supply so why not just let developers develop luxury units" is easily answered with "why don't we force developers who build luxury units to also build affordable housing." BMR units are subsidized by the market rate units in a development. Ergo, you have to raise prices on the market rate ones, but a) there's only so much the market can bear in terms of affordability there, and b) if an area can also be used for office space, then this incentivizes developers to use it for that instead, since they don't need to provide BMR office space that gets subsidized by market rate office space. Mandating a certain % of affordable units is probably ok as a compromise. It helps those who win the lottery at the expense of everyone else, but if you do it intelligently (e.g. provide density bonuses to developers who add more affordable units) it's probably not that bad. But a much smarter way to do this would be for the government to just build a bunch of large housing complexes itself, paid for out of general tax revenue. This is what Singapore does and it works great. Then you could just get as much market rate housing as the market can bear, and the government gets direct control over how many BMR units get built, rather than just hoping that developers build enough. Most people on the left don't seem for this, though, I guess it's easier to just have developers as the big bad villains of the story rather than see the government as being responsible. quote:I will be absolutely clear in stating that infill and development are essential to the growth of this city unless we want to give up stuff like the growth boundary (which is an amazing policy that the rest of the nation should look into). But there is no reason that this development has to focus entirely on where the most money can be made. Sure, given their druthers, developers would rather build exclusively for the segment that can pay the most, but as a society, we don't have to let them. Another issue is the missing middle of housing: cities in the US tend to have a lot of detached SFHs, and a lot of units in large apartment complexes, but not many ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, courtyard apartments, etc. It's much easier to build housing in a low-cost way when it's still relatively low-rise than when it's in a ginormous tower, because towers are inherently expensive to build. We need to stop treating SFH areas as sacrosanct. quote:In the absence of changes in state law, the least we can do is suck some of the fat off of the boom and redirect that money to housing relief and other worthy causes. What, do you think a real property sales tax will kill the housing market? Will it make developers and the wealthy, to use your words, "just go away?" anthonypants posted:In this post you have decided that property is no longer a supply-constrained market, after you said it was right here in this post that you made like 20 minutes ago,* and then after using that phrase you don't seem to understand what a "supply-constrained environment" is, because cars and phones and food is kind of different. Also you're arguing that those markets don't make record profits, which, again, means you're an idiot. I'm sorry. Being supply constrained isn't a binary thing. The land we build housing on is inherently limited, of course, but how much housing we can fit onto a given section of land is more flexible. Right now, zoning regulations usually keep most land in desirable cities producing a tiny number of housing units, but they could have much more if we wanted them to. There, was that so hard to understand? Cicero fucked around with this message at 20:14 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:well yeah, it's pacific/algona. i used to work there and while there wasnt much violent crime it's certainly not a nice area. It's just quiet and not very monied. Great place to live if you work in Kent/Renton, any further north and you'd probably want to move. Hope you're also getting quite the raise!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Because that can reduce the incentive to build housing in general. There, that was easy. What actually happens in the real world is that luxury apartment purchasers move in at increased rates and budget-conscious citizens or those who need different housing profiles are pushed out of the city and region. A demographic collapse is then primed to destroy the city in the shockingly short term. This is the core fact of housing (and other non-fungible goods) that go beyond the Econ101 pablum you have brought over and over again. A home is not a widgit.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Gerund posted:What actually happens in the real world is that luxury apartment purchasers move in at increased rates and budget-conscious citizens or those who need different housing profiles are pushed out of the city and region. A demographic collapse is then primed to destroy the city in the shockingly short term. This is the core fact of housing (and other non-fungible goods) that go beyond the Econ101 pablum you have brought over and over again. A home is not a widgit.    http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345 quote:Summary Again, SF tried the whole "fight new housing as prices rise" thing and it just resulted in prices rising even faster. But hey, don't let things like data and facts get in the way of your ideology, right?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Because that can reduce the incentive to build housing in general. There, that was easy. I think there's a lot of common ground between your position and mine, but, I'm definitely going to bristle at the claim that affordable units dis-incentivize building new units. This is one of those truism that gets tossed around in all kinds of areas. Pollution control regulations dis-incentivize manufacturing. Payroll taxes dis-incentivize hiring people. Blue sky laws dis-incentivize corporations going public. Public disclosure laws dis-incentivize giving money to political candidates and causes. And on, and on. Yeah, to some extent, they always do, but you work out the right balance so as not to completely stop development. Otherwise, might as well not have a government at all and just let the free market in its infinite wisdom sort everything out. It's a pointless rebuttal. But you've already worked this out, so why even bring it up? quote:The number of people who can afford luxury condos is limited. The more demand for those is met, the more developers have to target less profitable and more affordable segments. That's how it works in basically any industry. You have companies targeting luxury segments, and also companies targeting mass market segments. The reason you don't see companies targeting the mass market as much in these desirable west coast cities is because they are only able to build small numbers of units relative to demand. Here's the biggest problem with just letting developers build for the market: the wealthy get to have an absolute monopoly on the most desirable spaces. If we simply develop our way out of his housing crunch, we'll create economically segregated neighborhoods, with the wealthy getting to live in the nicest, most convenient areas, and everyone else pushed further and further from the city center. Of course, because of the way wealth in Portland and in the United States is distributed, creating economically segregated neighborhoods is also effectively creating racially segregated neighborhoods. So that's fun. I don't disagree that we need more development; but development alone isn't the solution. Honestly, development without other protections will work out better for people who earn above the median income but can't really be called rich. But everyone below that is still pushed out of the city. So it's better than San Fransisco, but not much better, because you're not really helping the little guy, you're only helping the "not-quite-as-big-guy." See my comment above about how we're more concerned about the haves v. the have-a-bit-lesses instead of the haves v. the have -nots. Your position is a classic example of this.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
xrunner posted:I think there's a lot of common ground between your position and mine, but, I'm definitely going to bristle at the claim that affordable units dis-incentivize building new units. This is one of those truism that gets tossed around in all kinds of areas. Pollution control regulations dis-incentivize manufacturing. Payroll taxes dis-incentivize hiring people. Blue sky laws dis-incentivize corporations going public. Public disclosure laws dis-incentivize giving money to political candidates and causes. And on, and on. Yeah, to some extent, they always do, but you work out the right balance so as not to completely stop development. Otherwise, might as well not have a government at all and just let the free market in its infinite wisdom sort everything out. It's a pointless rebuttal. But you've already worked this out, so why even bring it up? quote:Here's the biggest problem with just letting developers build for the market: the wealthy get to have an absolute monopoly on the most desirable spaces. If we simply develop our way out of his housing crunch, we'll create economically segregated neighborhoods, with the wealthy getting to live in the nicest, most convenient areas, and everyone else pushed further and further from the city center. Of course, because of the way wealth in Portland and in the United States is distributed, creating economically segregated neighborhoods is also effectively creating racially segregated neighborhoods. So that's fun. In places where they have saner development policies that permit more density (read: other countries) while you obviously still have neighborhoods that are more or less affluent, you also usually have a mix of incomes in neighborhoods where the difference is just that the rich have larger homes. The way to do that is permit more density. SFH areas are a good target because they currently have the least density and upgrading wide swathes or land from SFH -> low-density residential would let you get a lot more housing with a development style that's not inherently expensive to build, so even market rate developments might be somewhat affordable. quote:I don't disagree that we need more development; but development alone isn't the solution. Honestly, development without other protections will work out better for people who earn above the median income but can't really be called rich. But everyone below that is still pushed out of the city. So it's better than San Fransisco, but not much better, because you're not really helping the little guy, you're only helping the "not-quite-as-big-guy." See my comment above about how we're more concerned about the haves v. the have-a-bit-lesses instead of the haves v. the have -nots. Your position is a classic example of this. Solkanar512 posted:At the same time, we need to stop allowing the tantrums of established NIMBYs from preventing further development because "those buildings look ugly" or "my precious neighborhood character". quote:Neighbors of a new affordable housing project were adamant at a community meeting on Saturday morning: They oppose a nine-story senior building coming to Shotwell Street near Cesar Chavez Street because its height will create wind tunnels, block sunlight, and “bring downtown to the Mission.” lol Cicero fucked around with this message at 20:50 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Actually what happens is that building more housing reduces displacement. Actual data demonstrates this. Actual data demonstrates about everything I've said, in fact: Actual data in actual Seattle shows that rental prices reduced because of targeted price control mandates bracketed nearly directly with their implementation and having no connection with the constant expansion of current development. Your pulling of "displacement" as your data point belies the weakness of your argument. Actual rent costs are easier to account for in studies and are more real to the day to day reality of people who are living in the city. Displacement is not a real statistic if your choices are dying on the street or paying 75% of your income on housing.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Why not get the BMR units in a way that doesn't disincentivize development, though? For starters, because it's a fools errand to try to find the perfect solution that lets developers continue to operate exactly as they have been while somehow maintaining economically mixed neighborhoods. Making an activity more expensive or less profitable is going to dis-incentivize it, but that doesn't mean that the disincentive is going to actually stop anything. There's a difference between making an activity less attractive, and making it undesirable. That's why your argument doesn't make sense. quote:What you're describing is what happens when you have less development, not more. Nobody middle-class or poorer can afford SF anymore, they've all been pushed out. When the rich and middle-class bid against each other, the rich always win. The only solution is to have enough space for both. We need more housing, I'm not that picky about where it comes from. What I'm describing also happens when you let the market set the rates for a particular new development. I get that you can't magically solve the problem without more development, but it's ludicrous to suggest that development alone is the solution. Just letting developers build as many high-end units as they want means we'll end up with as many high-end units as the market can bear, so, basically, everything close-in. Once they reach saturation, they'll stop developing, sure, but the developed areas will be economically exclusive. Tell me, do you think, if San Fransisco had followed a more reasonable development policy, and had double or even triple the housing stock it currently does, that anyone with a modest income or below would be living there? Sure, it wouldn't be exclusive to millionaires, probably, but it would still be exclusive to people with incomes well above the median. quote:Did you just completely miss the part where I said that government should just build BMR housing themselves? Because you're acting as if I didn't write it. I'm not opposed to subsidized housing, I just want the housing to be subsidized in a way that doesn't discourage market rate housing being built. This is also a good thing and should be part of the solution. But there's no way that the government can do it all on their own. Fixing private development needs to be part of the solution. quote:Yeah, this is one of the biggest problems. Having a deed to your house doesn't give you a deed to your neighborhood never changing. Why do you keep arguing this point? Nobody I've read in this thread has made a pro-NIMBY argument. You're attacking people who aren't even challenging you.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
xrunner posted:I think there's a lot of common ground between your position and mine, but, I'm definitely going to bristle at the claim that affordable units dis-incentivize building new units. This is one of those truism that gets tossed around in all kinds of areas. Pollution control regulations dis-incentivize manufacturing. Payroll taxes dis-incentivize hiring people. Blue sky laws dis-incentivize corporations going public. Public disclosure laws dis-incentivize giving money to political candidates and causes. And on, and on. Yeah, to some extent, they always do, but you work out the right balance so as not to completely stop development. Otherwise, might as well not have a government at all and just let the free market in its infinite wisdom sort everything out. It's a pointless rebuttal. But you've already worked this out, so why even bring it up? (edit: Maybe you're sad that we don't get the iPhone factory, but the point of the regulation is protect the river, not allow the production of iPhones) twodot fucked around with this message at 21:39 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Actual data in actual Seattle shows that rental prices reduced because of targeted price control mandates bracketed nearly directly with their implementation and having no connection with the constant expansion of current development. quote:Your pulling of "displacement" as your data point belies the weakness of your argument. Actual rent costs are easier to account for in studies and are more real to the day to day reality of people who are living in the city. quote:Displacement is not a real statistic if your choices are dying on the street or paying 75% of your income on housing. xrunner posted:For starters, because it's a fools errand to try to find the perfect solution that lets developers continue to operate exactly as they have been while somehow maintaining economically mixed neighborhoods. quote:Making an activity more expensive or less profitable is going to dis-incentivize it, but that doesn't mean that the disincentive is going to actually stop anything. There's a difference between making an activity less attractive, and making it undesirable. That's why your argument doesn't make sense. quote:What I'm describing also happens when you let the market set the rates for a particular new development. I get that you can't magically solve the problem without more development, but it's ludicrous to suggest that development alone is the solution. Just letting developers build as many high-end units as they want means we'll end up with as many high-end units as the market can bear, so, basically, everything close-in. quote:Once they reach saturation, they'll stop developing, sure, but the developed areas will be economically exclusive. Tell me, do you think, if San Fransisco had followed a more reasonable development policy, and had double or even triple the housing stock it currently does, that anyone with a modest income or below would be living there? Sure, it wouldn't be exclusive to millionaires, probably, but it would still be exclusive to people with incomes well above the median. quote:This is also a good thing and should be part of the solution. But there's no way that the government can do it all on their own. quote:Fixing private development needs to be part of the solution. quote:Why do you keep arguing this point? Nobody I've read in this thread has made a pro-NIMBY argument. You're attacking people who aren't even challenging you. Cicero fucked around with this message at 21:45 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Another issue is also infrastructure, even if you want to build very high density housing, that doesn't mean it is necessarily a good idea in a place with lovely infrastructure/a lack of public investment. The reason Europe does so well is because they spent the Cold War period investing in both road and transit infrastructure which has allowed them to maximize their density to a create extent. In certain US cities it is improving [Denver remarkably enough] but the US is still a long way as a whole from that type of investment. Also, luxury condos are only going to open up only so much of other housing. especially quite a few of them are probably investment properties. or part time residences not to mention are likely to high sq footage per person. In all honesty, the US also just needs a poo poo load of public/subsidized housing as well and the market rate construction is not enough to satisfy it since it probably isn't too profitable in the way it needs to be done. Btw, most of those pedestrian improvements are almost always from public funds anyway. So you are an issue here since the way things are going you will have a even stratified society where wealth is concentrated in the center, and everyone on the outside has to make do with whatever is left. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:03 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Another issue is also infrastructure, even if you want to build very high density housing, that doesn't mean it is necessarily a good idea in a place with lovely infrastructure/a lack of public investment. The reason Europe does so well is because they spent the Cold War period investing in both road and transit infrastructure which has allowed them to maximize their density to a create extent. In certain US cities it is improving [Denver remarkably enough] but the US is still a long way as a whole from that type of investment. But it's not unfixable. Nothing stopping us from steadily adding more subways and rail, from adding protected bike lanes to streets. I mean, our GDP per capita is higher than every large European country, so it's not like we're too poor to do this. quote:Also, luxury condos are only going to open up only so much of other housing. especially quite a few of them are probably investment properties. or part time residences not to mention are likely to high sq footage per person. In all honesty, the US also just needs a poo poo load of public/subsidized housing as well and the market rate construction is not enough to satisfy it since it probably isn't too profitable in the way it needs to be done. In European cities you see higher level of density all over the place with lots of 'missing middle' housing, even in small towns. But oh no we can't upzone SFH areas because people are all protectionist about the 'character' of old homes (read: keep the poors out).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
twodot posted:This analogy doesn't work. Pollution control dis-incentivize manufacturing, that's true, but the difference here is that if an iPhone factory says "I literally can't afford to build iPhones without dumping arsenic in the river" then I'm happy to say "Welp, I guess you're not building iPhones here", and our river remains clean. If a developer says "I literally can't afford to build enough housing to satisfy demand if you make me charge at most $X for Y units" we can't just say "Whelp, I guess we aren't getting any housing", because that makes the problem worse, we need to satisfy demand otherwise rich people will just be bidding up whatever is available. So the question becomes are there values for X and Y such that you can convince a bunch of capitalists to build the amount of housing you think you need and why are you doing that instead of just building Y units and charging X for them yourself. Hahahaha did you really read my post and not understand a single point? This isn't "I leterally can't afford to build iPhones without dumping arsenic in the river" - it's - "I'll make 10% less if you don't let me dump arsenic in the river." If the developer said "I literally cannot afford to build homes unless only white people live in them" it would be comparable to your example. Don't be willfully dense, man, it's unnecessary. Cicero posted:Why? You can just build the BMR units in the neighborhoods that you want. And having close-in neighborhoods be somewhat more expensive isn't that bad as long as you have good transit (which needs to go hand in hand with housing policy). I don't mind that a close-in neighborhood is more expensive as long as there are controls to keep that neighborhood from being exclusive. Good transit really just comes down to busing in poor people but keeping them out of your shops, parks, and schools. quote:So you think that developers will build the exact same amount of housing at both high profit levels and moderate profit levels? Really? Yes. I think if it's a profitable enterprise that makes them money, they'll do it, even if it's not quite as profitable tomorrow as it was today. quote:Yes, and where and when it makes sense, they'll build units that aren't quite as expensive. I'd rather not leave it to a developer to decide that where or that when. quote:Just SF? Maybe not. SF proper isn't very big, geographically speaking, and it's the only 'real city' in a metro of 7 million. They can only do so much by themselves. If the whole bay area had a sensible housing policy? Oh yeah, definitely. Yeah. Gonna disagree. Even if the entire bay area had sensible housing policy and you tripled the housing stock, you wouldn't find people of modest income able to live in the most desirable part of the metro area. quote:Chill dude, I was just agreeing with him. Or are you saying I'm only allowed to attack people in this thread? After you edited that part, it's a little clearer, but pre-edit, it definitely read like you were attacking a strawman. Edit: Let me ask you this. You've stated your in favor of taxes to support affordable housing, and that's cool, but really, how is that different than telling a developer they must reserve a portion of units for lower income tenants? Either way, you're cutting into their profit margin. And, by mandating affordable units, you're getting affordable units now, in structures that are being built, instead of in five or ten years (if the government were to develop its own low cost options, they'd take a while to get up and running). HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 22:15 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
xrunner posted:Hahahaha did you really read my post and not understand a single point? This isn't "I leterally can't afford to build iPhones without dumping arsenic in the river" - it's - "I'll make 10% less if you don't let me dump arsenic in the river." edit: In your analogy, reducing how many factories are built is fine outcome of environmental policies. Reducing the amount of housing built directly makes the problem of affordable housing worse (even if that worseness is compensated by the regulation causing the reduction).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
quote:I don't mind that a close-in neighborhood is more expensive as long as there are controls to keep that neighborhood from being exclusive. Good transit really just comes down to busing in poor people but keeping them out of your shops, parks, and schools. quote:Yes. I think if it's a profitable enterprise that makes them money, they'll do it, even if it's not quite as profitable tomorrow as it was today. quote:Yeah. Gonna disagree. Even if the entire bay area had sensible housing policy and you tripled the housing stock, you wouldn't find people of modest income able to live in the most desirable part of the metro area. I mean, part of why there's so much demand for SF is that so much of the rest of the bay area is, as some describe it, a "suburban wasteland". Allowing more density across the bay area would help fix that. If San Jose felt more like a 'real city' then more affluent techies would be willing to choose it, alleviating some pressure on SF (see: techies currently enduring a horrible commute from SF to the south bay on company buses).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:And if you're a capitalist and you want to invest your money somewhere, that 10% can easily mean you go somewhere else instead, and the project isn't funded. You've acknowledged that this dis-incentivizes development, that necessarily means that some amount of people are deciding not to do it. If everyone was willing to just take a 10% hair cut, then there would be no disincentive. Again, this is same argument can be made against almost all business regulations. If I have to carry insurance, why am I going to bother operating a fleet of delivery vehicles? If I have to prevent my smokestack from releasing a certain percentage of mercury, why don't I just go into a business that doesn't involve smokestacks? If I have to submit to annual inspections of my kitchen, why don't I just invest in a business that doesn't serve food to the public. And on, and on, and on. At some point, you accept and understand that there aren't perfect solutions to everything and you balance things to find the solution with the most benefit. In response to your edit: quote:In your analogy, reducing how many factories are built is fine outcome of environmental policies. Reducing the amount of housing built directly makes the problem of affordable housing worse (even if that worseness is compensated by the regulation causing the reduction). Say 100 luxury units are currently being built in a desirable neighborhood, none of which are affordable unless you're in the top 10 or 15% of income earners. Say you then mandate that 33% of those units are affordable. Now, because this is a hypothetical to demonstrate my point, let's pretend this means that between charging more for the market rate units and eating some losses, the developer decides to only build 90 units. Before you had 100 luxury units, now you have 30 affordable units and 60 luxury units. 30 people who would otherwise have to move well outside the city center can now live there, at the loss of 10 wealthy people who are bidding up each others properties or have to look elsewhere. I see no real negative here. Obviously, those numbers are purely hypothetical, but they should demonstrate my point. It's a balance we're looking for. HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 22:31 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
xrunner posted:Again, this is same argument can be made against almost all business regulations. If I have to carry insurance, why am I going to bother operating a fleet of delivery vehicles? If I have to prevent my smokestack from releasing a certain percentage of mercury, why don't I just go into a business that doesn't involve smokestacks? If I have to submit to annual inspections of my kitchen, why don't I just invest in a business that doesn't serve food to the public. And on, and on, and on. At some point, you accept and understand that there aren't perfect solutions to everything and you balance things to find the solution with the most benefit.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Man I love to see new posts, except when it's a Seattle-centric circlejerk or Cicero white knighting capitalism. Here, have a picture of the Gorge I took today. Everybody can enjoy it's beauty and Cicero can lament the lack of visible oil trains. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
xrunner posted:Again, this is same argument can be made against almost all business regulations. If I have to carry insurance, why am I going to bother operating a fleet of delivery vehicles? If I have to prevent my smokestack from releasing a certain percentage of mercury, why don't I just go into a business that doesn't involve smokestacks? If I have to submit to annual inspections of my kitchen, why don't I just invest in a business that doesn't serve food to the public. And on, and on, and on. At some point, you accept and understand that there aren't perfect solutions to everything and you balance things to find the solution with the most benefit. The point of affordable housing regulation is to allow for the creation of more affordable housing. If the regulation causes less housing to be built, and therefore prices to go up, that fundamentally works against the premise of the regulation. It may be that the goodness of your regulation offsets the price increase, or you believe you can shift the cost increase on people you don't mind having increased costs, but this argument has a relevance to affordable housing that is not relevant to other regulation/industry pairings. edit: quote:Say 100 luxury units are currently being built in a desirable neighborhood, none of which are affordable unless you're in the top 10 or 15% of income earners. Say you then mandate that 33% of those units are affordable. Now, because this is a hypothetical to demonstrate my point, let's pretend this means that between charging more for the market rate units and eating some losses, the developer decides to only build 90 units. Before you had 100 luxury units, now you have 30 affordable units and 60 luxury units. 30 people who would otherwise have to move well outside the city center can now live there, at the loss of 10 wealthy people who are bidding up each others properties or have to look elsewhere. I see no real negative here. Obviously, those numbers are purely hypothetical, but they should demonstrate my point. It's a balance we're looking for. twodot fucked around with this message at 22:39 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:It's just quiet and not very monied. Great place to live if you work in Kent/Renton, any further north and you'd probably want to move. Hope you're also getting quite the raise! Except he hates it there. Crazy ex mayor, poo poo schools, and we both work in Issaquah. My house in Kent East Hill - 3 bd 2 bath rambler, built in 1968, moderately upgraded - $320k on Zillow His house in Pacific - 3 bd 2 bath ramber, built in 1999, no major upgrades - $225k on Zillow Not bothering to read all the other posts. Just want to chime in and say gently caress all these 5-7 bedroom mini mansions that you can reach out and touch your neighbor from. Its awful funny when there is little to no parking space and 12 Hondas parked out front.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Those other things are all compensating for some kind of problem/externality that the business is causing itself. But building market rate housing isn't what's causing housing prices to spike. But the business is profiting off of the spike in prices. It's not unfair to ask them to help mitigate the ill effects that come from their opportunity.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Man I love to see new posts, except when it's a Seattle-centric circlejerk or Cicero white knighting capitalism. That rest stop has a great view. You can almost see Lyle from there.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
xrunner posted:But the business is profiting off of the spike in prices. It's not unfair to ask them to help mitigate the ill effects that come from their opportunity. SyHopeful posted:Man I love to see new posts, except when it's a Seattle-centric circlejerk or Cicero white knighting capitalism. That's exactly why all those cities in Western Europe have those kinds of housing policies too, it's because they're all shills for capitalism, not like the honest socialists here in America. Cicero fucked around with this message at 23:01 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
xrunner posted:Say 100 luxury units are currently being built in a desirable neighborhood, none of which are affordable unless you're in the top 10 or 15% of income earners. Say you then mandate that 33% of those units are affordable. Now, because this is a hypothetical to demonstrate my point, let's pretend this means that between charging more for the market rate units and eating some losses, the developer decides to only build 90 units. Before you had 100 luxury units, now you have 30 affordable units and 60 luxury units. 30 people who would otherwise have to move well outside the city center can now live there, at the loss of 10 wealthy people who are bidding up each others properties or have to look elsewhere. I see no real negative here. Obviously, those numbers are purely hypothetical, but they should demonstrate my point. It's a balance we're looking for. Obviously you can mandate units but there because the rub of trying to reduce resistance when the developer sees it as a direct threat to his bottom line. Ultimately, it probably takes a carrot and stick approach of increases subsides but increased penalties if a developer neglects to add affordable housing. Also, "affordable housing" is often a loose definition as well and while certain cities have very defined meanings of it, it is almost certain developers will try to call market-rate housing "affordable" if they can. In the end, the issue requires public monies and investment and further regulation. That said, one side benefit of having some luxury housing is the ability to tax the poo poo out of it and spend it on housing subsidies. As for public infrastructure, the US effectively pissed away a lot of infrastructure during the post-war period and it is still far from catching up and ultimately it is a touch and go battle [look at the DC metro for more details]. Seattle itself in all honesty is moving too slowly to honestly address its transit needs [after decades of delays] and I think everyone admits the tunnel was a giant mistake. It is nice to see Seattle slowly come to terms with its needs but if anything I think ST3 plans are still not ambitious enough. In the end, some luxury condos have to be built but it is far from enough and it is right people are bitching about them but it is also going to take a lot of money and time to truly fix the issue. As for Portland, I think there is a little more flexibility but one thing is that Portland really needs to turn the PDC/TIP districts [ask for details] from urban renewal to providing affordable housing. Central Portland and everything around it is as nice as it needs to be and most of those BID districts should see their property taxes directed to more pressing issues ie housing. Portland actually has resources and at least some infrastructure, but it is pretty about allocation.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 23:00
|
|