How Much Housing Will Be Built?
ternercenter2.berkeley.edu
How Much Housing Will Be Built?
1–10 of 113 posts
Re: How Much Housing Will Be Built?
#2If you click the link and, leaving all the rest of the defaults alone, drop the required affordable housing percentage from 10% to 0%, you lose about 4,000 affordable units but gain 6,000 market-rate ones.
So, would this change increase or decrease displacement?
Well, another recent Berkeley study concluded that a new market-rate apartment has about half the displacement-fighting impact of a below-market-rate apartment: http://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/...
Therefore, the benefit of the extra market-rate units fails to offset the damage from the loss of affordable units (6000/2 But if you crank it up to 15%, the gains from the extra affordable units are overwhelmed by the lost market-rate units (4000/2 > 784). So it looks like the default value of 10% is the sweet spot.
By the way, the math is even easier for the 25% threshold that Supervisors Jane Kim and Aaron Peskin are proposing (http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Prop-C-...), because that would actually lead to less affordable housing being built. Less market-rate, too. A double displacement whammy.
Re: How Much Housing Will Be Built?
#3If you click the link and, leaving all the rest of the defaults alone, drop the required affordable housing percentage from 10% to 0%, you lose about 4,000 affordable units but gain 6,000 market-rate ones. So, would this change increase or decrease displacement? Well, another recent Berkeley study concluded that a new market-rate apartment has about half the displacement-fighting impact of a below-market-rate apartme…
The entire concept of low income housing is a scam to keep market rate prices high. Build enough market rate housing that the price falls to what low income people can afford and you don't need any low income housing.
If the government spent the money it spends subsidizing rents on subsidizing construction then the problem would be solved.
Re: How Much Housing Will Be Built?
#4If you click the link and, leaving all the rest of the defaults alone, drop the required affordable housing percentage from 10% to 0%, you lose about 4,000 affordable units but gain 6,000 market-rate ones. So, would this change increase or decrease displacement? Well, another recent Berkeley study concluded that a new market-rate apartment has about half the displacement-fighting impact of a below-market-rate apartme…
The entire concept of low income housing is a scam to keep market rate prices high. Build enough market rate housing that the price falls to what low income people can afford and you don't need any low income housing. If the government spent the money it spends subsidizing rents on subsidizing construction then the problem would be solved.
So you're saying you don't believe that an affordable unit has twice the displacement-fighting power of a market-rate unit?
If so, what's the basis for this belief? Have you read the study I linked to, which concludes otherwise? If so, what part of its reasoning do you contest?
Re: How Much Housing Will Be Built?
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entire concept of low income housing is a scam to keep market rate prices high. Build enough market rate housing that the price falls to what low income people can afford and you don't need any low income housing. If the government spent the money it spends subsidizing rents on subsidizing construction then the problem would be solved.
So you're saying you don't believe that an affordable unit has twice the displacement-fighting power of a market-rate unit? If so, what's the basis for this belief? Have you read the study I linked to, which concludes otherwise? If so, what part of its reasoning do you contest?
The flaw is scale. If you build one market rate unit (or ten or a hundred) then you get displacement, because the price of the market rate units remain too high for low income people to afford. You need to build a million.
Re: How Much Housing Will Be Built?
#6If you click the link and, leaving all the rest of the defaults alone, drop the required affordable housing percentage from 10% to 0%, you lose about 4,000 affordable units but gain 6,000 market-rate ones. So, would this change increase or decrease displacement? Well, another recent Berkeley study concluded that a new market-rate apartment has about half the displacement-fighting impact of a below-market-rate apartme…
This is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't consider opportunity cost. Instead of building special units that would benefit 4,000 people, a tiny fraction of the Bay Area, cities could charge an equivalent general fee that benefits everyone. The money could pay for mass transit, parks, services for the poor, programs for children, and so on.
Re: How Much Housing Will Be Built?
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying you don't believe that an affordable unit has twice the displacement-fighting power of a market-rate unit? If so, what's the basis for this belief? Have you read the study I linked to, which concludes otherwise? If so, what part of its reasoning do you contest?
The flaw is scale. If you build one market rate unit (or ten or a hundred) then you get displacement, because the price of the market rate units remain too high for low income people to afford. You need to build a million .
Actually, just building 111,000 (increasing the city's supply by 30%) would cut housing costs in half.
Source: http://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employmen...
Re: How Much Housing Will Be Built?
#8If you click the link and, leaving all the rest of the defaults alone, drop the required affordable housing percentage from 10% to 0%, you lose about 4,000 affordable units but gain 6,000 market-rate ones. So, would this change increase or decrease displacement? Well, another recent Berkeley study concluded that a new market-rate apartment has about half the displacement-fighting impact of a below-market-rate apartme…
The entire concept of low income housing is a scam to keep market rate prices high. Build enough market rate housing that the price falls to what low income people can afford and you don't need any low income housing. If the government spent the money it spends subsidizing rents on subsidizing construction then the problem would be solved.
Government price controls do not fundamentally change the cost only the price.
If the government is so efficient and can, somehow, make housing cheaper than it would be in a free market why shouldn't they also take control of the food supply? Computers? Software? All industry?
Re: How Much Housing Will Be Built?
#9If you click the link and, leaving all the rest of the defaults alone, drop the required affordable housing percentage from 10% to 0%, you lose about 4,000 affordable units but gain 6,000 market-rate ones. So, would this change increase or decrease displacement? Well, another recent Berkeley study concluded that a new market-rate apartment has about half the displacement-fighting impact of a below-market-rate apartme…
The entire concept of low income housing is a scam to keep market rate prices high. Build enough market rate housing that the price falls to what low income people can afford and you don't need any low income housing. If the government spent the money it spends subsidizing rents on subsidizing construction then the problem would be solved.
> Build enough market rate housing that the price falls to what low income people can afford and you don't need any low income housing.
There are other kind of problems like buy-to-leave (http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Buy_to_leave).
In that scenario the amount of housing to build to get to a point that it is affordable is a lot higher than it should be.
> subsidizing construction If you mean state owned properties. I agree on that. Having low rent housing competing in the market bring prices down. But the number should be significant enough. Otherwise it just becomes a lottery where a few win but has not broader impact in the market.
Re: How Much Housing Will Be Built?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entire concept of low income housing is a scam to keep market rate prices high. Build enough market rate housing that the price falls to what low income people can afford and you don't need any low income housing. If the government spent the money it spends subsidizing rents on subsidizing construction then the problem would be solved.
> Build enough market rate housing that the price falls to what low income people can afford and you don't need any low income housing. There are other kind of problems like buy-to-leave ( http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Buy_to_leave ). In that scenario the amount of housing to build to get to a point that it is affordable is a lot higher than it should be. > subsidizing construction If you mean state owned…
> There are other kind of problems like buy-to-leave (http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Buy_to_leave). In that scenario the amount of housing to build to get to a point that it is affordable is a lot higher than it should be.
Not if you publicly announce your intentions ahead of time. Then people have no incentive to do that because the expectation will be for housing prices to decline and the investment to lose value.
> If you mean state owned properties.
I mean giving subsidies to builders who create new market rate housing. Although another major problem is zoning regulations that prevent new housing from being constructed regardless of financing.