Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 189 posts

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#121

Post by Symmetry »

ramblerouser wrote: post #105
Symmetry wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This metric is comparing returns to capital to total returns to labor, not the median returns to labor. Median wages haven't been doing too well recently due to rising inequality but gains by the best paid professionals would be enough to make up for that on this metric except for rising housing costs.

I dont see how a low median return plays no role in total returns. If the median were higher surely the total would be higher no?

All things being equal, raising the median wage income raises the mean wage income. But the mean wage income can also rise form things that don't raise the mean income, like people in the top quartile being paid more. And you get the total wages paid out by multiplying the number of wage earners by the mean wage, not the median wage.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#122

Post by mrec »

Sileni wrote: post #72
mywittyname wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banks love mortgages because they are easy, safe ways to earn a bit more than the federal rate. Wealthy consumers love mortgages because it's a cheap way to leverage a huge asset for market-rate returns. Normal consumers love mortgages because it allows them to buy a house. Good luck taking that away. Additionally, while access to credit raises housing prices, there's no guarantee that removing access to that credit…

But you're ignoring the fact that people are already being priced out of the housing market. The market only continues to gain steam while the next generation can reasonably shoulder the burden being placed on them by the previous. Otherwise those assets are going to deprecate. Credit allowed a handful of people to become incredibly wealthy by becoming rent seekers, while most people didn't realize they had the oppor…

Yes. Here in the UK, I have a lot of sympathy with the view that Corbyn's Labour would deliver debt-funded jam today by dumping the burden onto future taxpayers, but the Conservatives have been doing the exact same thing for their own clients, via property inflation.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#123

Post by cagenut »

munificent wrote: post #78
FussyZeus wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we can make more computers, execute more healthcare services, etc. Land is a zero sum game; we have a fixed amount, and while it's possible to create more, it's prohibitively expensive to do so. Add to it, land is the primary method by which "old money" remains in that category.

> Land is a zero sum game; we have a fixed amount, and while it's possible to create more, it's prohibitively expensive to do so. Yes, but that sum in the US is huge . Drive around the midwest or any region outside of an urban core and its empty space as far as the eye can see. The problem is large-scale economic and demographic changes. The US used to have: * A culture that prized living in suburbia away from dense…

why? just because you grew up that way? stop fighting it. lots of sprawl/small-cities is bad. to put it a little (but not a lot) hyperbolically: we should retreat to megalopolises and declare everything else state parks.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#124

Post by Nasrudith »

prolikewh0a wrote: post #82
ginko wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the State governments the problem here though? From what I(not American) can tell the issue seems to be more that local residents have a surprising(to me) amount of political control over zoning on the municipal level. I guess this is all part of the American approach to the distribution of power and there are certainly good sides to this, but it also means that NIMBYs can have so much control by voting for the m…

NIMBY's have practically all of the power with zoning laws in Seattle. They have all of the money as well. We have a crazy amount of SFH right now when we have a housing crisis. It's not like housing would become more affordable anyway, Seattle only builds luxury housing for the rich (and they're having a hard time filling these units!).

Building housing for the rich has a displacing effect. Either they are locals and their old place goes to sale or rent or they no longer displace existing residents. And absent sweetheart deals incoming rich with their increased tax revenues should allow the city to upgrade public transit, build public housing or other solutions. But it is up to the city to solve their problems.

Apparently in Boston contrary to concerns luxury high rises didn't act as gentrification locuses but stemmed its tide in other areas instead.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#125

Post by Nasrudith »

munificent wrote: post #80
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Distance costs money or time (basically the same thing at the macro level). When you have things spread out people need to eat the large opportunity cost of forgoing jobs or other opportunities that are far away or spent a lot of time and money commuting. If cities prioritized making it easy to commute in and out that would make distance cost less, effectively the same as increasing density. The problem is that there…

Instead of trying to put cheap homes where the jobs are, we could also try to put jobs where the cheap homes are. People constantly talk about the former, but I almost never see people talk about the latter.

Homes are cheap by definition because not enough people want them in the area. The closest thing we have to that is the Military Industrial Complex and setting up locations to ensure votes. They have the most influence per dollar by going to areas which have fewer other jobs.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#126

Post by prolikewh0a »

darksaints wrote: post #88
prolikewh0a wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NIMBY's have practically all of the power with zoning laws in Seattle. They have all of the money as well. We have a crazy amount of SFH right now when we have a housing crisis. It's not like housing would become more affordable anyway, Seattle only builds luxury housing for the rich (and they're having a hard time filling these units!).

> It's not like housing would become more affordable anyway, Seattle only builds luxury housing for the rich (and they're having a hard time filling these units!). They only build luxury housing because housing supply is restricted and the rich can outbid the poor for that restricted development. And no, they aren't having a hard time filling units.

>And no, they aren't having a hard time filling units.

Seattle Times says otherwise.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/free-amazo...

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#127

Post by darksaints »

lhopki01 wrote: post #114
darksaints wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly every city in the world has built infrastructure in lockstep with growth for their entire existence. Thats simply how its done. When you have existing demand for more infrastructure, you build it. Maybe you could claim that it is better to provide infrastructure before people, but it is actually the master planned cities that have yet to succeed, not the other way around. It's just too damn expensive to provid…

This isn't strictly true. A lot of the London underground was built first and then housing developed around it. Actually the tube getting to a place prompted massive development in the area. Similarly now if a new line gets created to an area in many cities you see development around it.

The tube was built outwards, not within. It was a reflection of demand for housing that already existed in quantities large enough to justify it, and was also growing at paces never seen before with no end in sight, and there was no possible way to build upward at the time. In other words, given the conditions of their time, they were building the infrastructure in response to already existing demand.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#128

Post by darksaints »

prolikewh0a wrote: post #126
darksaints wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not like housing would become more affordable anyway, Seattle only builds luxury housing for the rich (and they're having a hard time filling these units!). They only build luxury housing because housing supply is restricted and the rich can outbid the poor for that restricted development. And no, they aren't having a hard time filling units.

>And no, they aren't having a hard time filling units. Seattle Times says otherwise. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/free-amazo...

That's like saying I'm having a hard time becoming a billionaire. Of course I am...but that in no way implies I'm having a tough time paying my bills.

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#129

Post by travisoneill1 »

ahoy wrote: post #26
kazinator wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm for Japanese zoning, and Japanese anything else, provided we make everyone "Japanese" first: bred with the same common code of decency. Also, Japan is NIMBY at the national level, as in "not on my island". For instance, accepting few refugees. Smart in other ways, not just the zoning, you see. They protect their culture.

Ah, the classic "only monocultures can work toward the social good, if we'd stop accepting 'outsiders' we could do the same" trope. It's tired and xenophobic. The presence of foreigners isn't why laws that benefit already-wealthy real estate developers persist.

How exactly do laws that prevent development benefit developers?

Re: A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable

#130

Post by kazinator »

travisoneill1 wrote: post #129
ahoy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the classic "only monocultures can work toward the social good, if we'd stop accepting 'outsiders' we could do the same" trope. It's tired and xenophobic. The presence of foreigners isn't why laws that benefit already-wealthy real estate developers persist.

How exactly do laws that prevent development benefit developers?

Laws that limit development benefit developers. The few that develop get to develop something that fetches an inflated market value due to low supply and high demand. It's the same way dairy "supply management" in Canada gets dairy farmers a higher price for milk.
Post reply on HN