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

141–150 of 189 posts

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

#141

Post by bluGill »

bradleyjg wrote: post #106
munificent wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The former problem is much easier than the latter. In order to accomplish it we just need to governments to stop actively blocking it from happening. We have no idea where to even begin with the latter. The best we can do is throw a whole bunch of untested ideas at the wall and hope one works.

I've talked about it, but I seem to be the only one...

In any new suburb or city you are not allowed to put jobs where the people are. There is exactly one house within comfortable walking distance of my office: the farmhouse that was here before the area was developed. If I bought a lot in this office park I would not be allowed to put apartments or houses. A couple miles away there are lots of houses, I wouldn't be allowed to buy a few and put in an office. A few miles in a different direction is a shopping mall that is failing. If I bought the mall I wouldn't be allowed to rent space for offices or apartments without first doing a zoning change, and then I'd have to choose either apartments or office, I wouldn't be allowed to put a house in the parking lot that is bigger than either apartments or offices would need.

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

#142

Post by maxsilver »

nine_k wrote: post #113
notJim wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is right, and this is the problem with solely YIMBY/market urbanist approaches to housing. Developers will all chase tech workers who can pay significantly more money for housing, and the housing market is segmented enough that it doesn't really free up housing at the low end. See this article for more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-expensive... We do need to build housing, but it can't all…

Make providing e.g. 10% of the apartment capacity of a block as affordable / municipal-controlled housing a part of the building contract. Or make redevelopment of a "luxury" block tied to redevelopment of a less luxury block providing affordable housing (still net-positive for the development company, just much less lucrative). That is, make affordable development a part of the price of luxury development if you mus…

We have that. It's called "inclusionary zoning", and it's another thing the YIMBYs are trying to kill.

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

#143

Post by dsfyu404ed »

briffle wrote: post #118
burlesona wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federal zoning would be really difficult to get done constitutionally, but state level zoning wouldn’t be as hard and would have most of the same benefits, ie. reducing the power the nimbys. However there’s no reason to think that would fix it all, transportation planning, design, and funding is almost entirely a state and federal affair, and the nimbys still torpedo all sorts of things that would be great for the re…

The threat to take away federal funding for places that don’t accept housing growth may be more effective than a brute force approach in the end, who knows. I believe this is similar to the approach the feds used to move the drinking age to 21 [1], and the old nationwide 55 mph speed limit [2]. They didn't force states to create laws, just said "Federal highway funding will be drastically reduced to states that do no…

Both of those are regarded as examples of the federal government acting outside its authority by a lot of people.

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

#144

Post by bluGill »

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…

People will always be priced out of the housing market. Adam Smith observed in the wealth of the nations that once people have the basics housing tends to eat the rest of their income. You can afford to buy/rent closer to where you want to live, or you can afford to buy/rent a bigger place. Since you already have enough for the basics most people find that better housing improves their quality of life.

I have noticed in recent years that improving without changing location or size is also often done as well. A cheap laminate counter is replaced by granite - no change functionally or in size, just an aesthetic change.

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

#145

Post by bluGill »

Epenthesis wrote: post #139
temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #45

As with most things, engineering a blunt policy solution will lead to unintended consequences. If this proposal goes into effect, by clobbering local zoning codes, anything with sufficient money behind it is going to get built. This typically means projects that optimize for the developer's ability to extract rent from residents: 3 or 4-story apartments with small unit sizes, basic finishes made to aesthetically look…

> rent will not drop, because the developer has to make payments on loans and maintain a profit So, you're saying that if the developer has costs of X $/mo month, then in a oversupplied market, rather than take, say 0.8X $/mo in rent and have losses of -0.2X $/mo, they'll refuse to rent at all and take losses of -X $/mo? Why?

renting for a large landlord is complex.

Often landlords do this today for zoning reasons. There are places that are in theory for rent, but the landlord built just because the zoning required it - they knew very well it would never be rented so they cut corners and pretend to have it for rent while in practice it will never be occupied. They make up for the loss with the other properties that went up at the same time.

Assuming we eliminate that, landlords will still sometimes not rent at all. When you have a lot of properties you reach a point where raising rent and causing someone to leave because they cannot afford the rent nets more money than the smaller rent fully occupied. In addition the non-occupied property is available for rent should someone want it - since tenants move all the time you better always be in the process of getting more.

Last, over the course of the year 10 months at full rent is worth more than 12 months at .8 rent. So landlords are always trying to figure out if it is better to lower the rent and long term make less, or hold out for another month.

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

#146

Post by kcorbitt »

maxsilver wrote: post #131
oliwarner wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing in Japan is culturally unique. The average house depreciates completely after just 22 years. People just don't buy used houses. It's folly to compare zoning rules when the spirit of the law is so different.

This is a big difference between the two. I'm totally ok with Japanese zoning, if we get Japanese depreciation and all housing is required to become worthless after 2 decades. However, YIMBYs only want half of that -- they want Japanese zoning, with American infinite appreciation. Which is disastrous to basically everyone who works for a living.

> YIMBYs want [...] American infinite appreciation.

I'd appreciate a source on this. Most self-identified YIMBYs I've met in San Francisco would be ecstatic if housing prices stabilized or fell – in fact that's one of their primary objectives.

Vocal YIMBYs I've met are either (1) young people who don't own property, for whom the current stratospheric prices are out of reach, or (2) employers who have to convince those young people to come and work in the Bay Area, despite the unbearably high cost of real estate.

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

#147

Post by bluGill »

joecot wrote: post #70
grandmczeb wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HUD grants are a major source of funding for things like fighting homelessness. The city could decline them, but they would have to make up the difference.

Would they though? Are cities required to make up the difference? Problem: cities are artificially keeping housing prices up, pushing lower income people out in favor of the upper class. The housing market is forcing lower income people out of cities. Solution: tell cities they have to stop artificially keeping housing prices up, or the federal government will stop subsidizing low income housing and subsidized loans.…

It isn't just about your city. If the working poor find it advantageous to live your city for one half way across the state that is less people to work the lower income jobs - now it is more expensive to get the toilets cleaned in the office. This raises your cost of living, and lowers it in the other city.

Of course how this all works out is very complex and messy and will take dozens of years before we see anything significant.

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

#148

Post by mendelsd »

mrec wrote: post #122
Sileni wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Land by its nature is scarce. A site in Mayfair cannot be reproduced like a pair of shoes. The monopoly rent it commands plays no productive role. It acts as a private tax on the productive economy. The question has always been what can be done about it." [1]

I posted that quote because it's the reference I found most speedily to the idea that high land prices impose private (i.e. paid into the private sector) taxation, rather than public. You didn't make the distinction between public vs private taxation in your comment and I thought it should be made.

Public taxation is also involved of course, e.g. when governments need to bail out the banking system; Help to Buy in the UK; etc.

[1] https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/how-land-property-is-tied-to-...

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

#149

Post by [deleted] »

mywittyname wrote: post #62
mendelsd wrote: post #4

If you want to make housing affordable you will need to reckon with this: http://positivemoney.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/UK-House... House prices move with mortgage credit growth. Credit growth is one of the key pillars of the politically sustained Ponzi-scheme that is the modern urban housing market.

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…

[deleted]

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

#150

Post by mrec »

mendelsd wrote: post #148
mrec wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Land by its nature is scarce. A site in Mayfair cannot be reproduced like a pair of shoes. The monopoly rent it commands plays no productive role. It acts as a private tax on the productive economy. The question has always been what can be done about it." [1] I posted that quote because it's the reference I found most speedily to the idea that high land prices impose private (i.e. paid into the private sector) taxat…

> high land prices impose private (i.e. paid into the private sector) taxation, rather than public

Agreed, though I'm not sure that's much consolation to the ones paying it. With public taxation at least you can hope you're helping to fund something useful.

Post reply on HN