365
First American City to Tame Inflation Owes Its Success to Affordable Housing
(www.bloomberg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
365 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19248 readers
2179 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Net-new luxury housing is good for affordability, because when someone moves into a more expensive unit, that frees up their current more affordable unit.
More to the point, Seattle literally just legalized missing middle housing in most of the city earlier this year. That's good for affordability, but new housing takes time to build. And developers will try to build the most lucrative project they currently can.
Housing is a matter of supply and demand. When you're in a housing shortage, prices will be high and most of the new supply will be luxury. The solution to a housing shortage is to build more housing, period. If you build housing faster than increasing demand from population growth, prices of units will go down. If you build housing and prices stay high, you didn't build enough. Build more. Remove NIMBYs ability to prevent new builds.
Which is not to say that building public housing or other projects to subsidize housing is a bad idea. But it's really, really hard to do that effectively during a housing shortage and solving the shortage is good for everyone except homeowners who wanted to use their equity as their retirement nest egg.
Trickle down housing doesn't work, we both know that.
It's not about trickle down, it's about building to meet the capacity. I live in this area and can tell you first hand. I live in a cheap building and all the luxury condos going up has made it so my landlord cannot jack up rents anymore. They were doing it constantly before the building boom and now they can't even fill multiple units at the rents they want to charge.
And they'll leave them empty.
Vacancy rates don't reflect what people think they do, and actual long term vacancy rates are a fraction of what people think they are.
In particular: the census' published vacancy rates includes all housing that isn't someone's primary occupancy on census day to be unoccupied.
The vacancy rate includes buildings that are tied up in estate, forclosure or divorce proceedings, housing that is actively being renovated, that can't be rented until it's renovated or is mostly constructed. It includes units that are actively on the market. It includes units that just got rented or sold but where the new tenants will move in a week after the census. It includes housing where the owner is in jail, or on an extended work assignment elsewhere. It includes private vacation homes and AirBnBs.
You can argue about the ethics of evictions, forclosures, AirBnB and vacation homes, but the vacancy rate is fundamentally a snapshot of current occupancy. A certain amount of short term transient vacancies are expected, because many normal processes take time. You don't sell your parents house and have someone move into it the day your parents die, after all. Vacancy rates are not evidence of a conspiracy to artificially lower the amount of housing in an area by holding units off market.
To my knowledge, the census doesn't actually track the rate of long-term habitable vacancies, units that could be sold or rented tomorrow but aren't on the market.
I would almost guarantee that the amount of people leaving affordable housing to luxury housing is a completely negligible percentage, like <1% of home buyers. Prove me wrong, I guess, but your argument that building more luxury housing somehow benefits the middle and poor classes just reeks of nonsensical bullshit, sorry.
Directly? Obviously, that's pretty rare.
But housing is something like a game of musical chairs. If Alice moves into a luxury unit, that leaves their old unit open. Bob then moves into Alice's old unit, Charlotte moves into Bob's old unit, Dave moves into Charlotte's old unit, etc. until Zoey moves into Xanders old unit.
The question isn't 'how likely is Alice's old unit to be affordable?', it's 'how likely is it that Zoey's old unit is affordable?'