Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws • Hacker News Board

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#81

Post by TulliusCicero » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:50 PM UTC

EliRivers wrote: post #10

baggy_trough wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really an appalling point of view. There is absolutely nothing wrong with single family neighborhoods; in fact, they are greatly desirable to most.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with single family neighborhoods Do they not, by their very nature, enforce low-density housing? Is that not a bad thing to enforce in places with too few dwellings?

It is, and I'm not sure why you got downvoted so heavily.

More housing giving people more freedom to choose where to live is good.

More housing helping make living more affordable is good.

More housing making good jobs in economically booming areas more accessible is good.

More housing density is indisputably better for the environment.

There's many good reasons to be for more housing density, and many fewer good reasons to be against.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#82

Post by Misdicorl » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:52 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #74

Misdicorl wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, vehicle traffic would be by far my #1 worry in high density areas.

With respect, you have it exactly backwards. It's the US, with its predominately low density, car-dominant building style that has vastly more traffic fatalities than higher-density Germany or Japan. It's true that low-density SFH areas often seem more peaceful, but in practice cars there usually travel much faster than they do in higher-density neighborhoods, and it's speed that kills.

Those traffic fatalities are vastly more vehicle-vehicle collisions. I believe the EU even in the last decade legislated car design changes to address the risks of vehicle-pedestrian accidents that are far more prevalent there.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#83

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:53 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #61

wpietri wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. It depends on the kind of rent control. Housing has important asymmetries it's reasonable to address through legislation. One is asymmetry in scale: you have one unit; landlords have many more. This gives them stronger negotiating power. Another is cost of change. It's much more expensive for me in…

> One is asymmetry in scale: you have one unit; landlords have many more. This gives them stronger negotiating power. This is one of those theoretical arguments that sounds good but have no empirical foundation at all. If it was true the gigantic Walmart could completely dick me around when buying socks and toilet paper. In reality prices are very competitive. It also completely ignores that fact that most landlords…

It’s not theoretical at all, and Walmart does dick you around, albeit indirectly. They dick around the supplier and force them to make cuts in quality to meet the price. And if Target/Amazon/Dollar General weren’t around, there’s no reason they wouldn’t increase prices and pad their margins.

In a landlord situation, their cost of goods is so small that they can afford to sit on an empty apartment while prospective renters need to put a roof over their family or business.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#84

Post by TulliusCicero » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:54 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #2

> Lawmakers passed a first-in-the-nation cap on rent increases Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... https://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-rent-cont... > in an effort to spur new homebuilding, became the only state to eliminate single-family-only zoning in many…

> Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse.

Agreed. However, there is an orthogonal reason to be pro-rent control: housing stability.

Housing stability, as in people's freedom to remain in their home, even if their landlord, for whatever reason would rather they not. This is often a big reason why people in the US want to buy their own home, but there's no reason you couldn't give comparable stability to renters, as other countries have already done, by only letting tenants be kicked out for a handful of specific reasons (e.g. non-payment, destruction of property, etc.).

The one catch is that you can't have housing stability clauses without rent control, because otherwise the landlord could always "soft evict" by simply raising the rent until the current tenant leaves.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#85

Post by api » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:54 PM UTC

thrav wrote: post #21

scribu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've observed that [leaving children unattended] becomes unsafe in places with high density populations. Is that factually accurate, or just a false impression that people get? Let's assume it is objectively more unsafe. Is the problem the high density or is it some other aspect that causes issues? Most kids in East European countries, the vast majority of which grow up in high density neighborhoods, are left unat…

I think the problem is imagined. The “problem” of safety has made its way out to the burbs now too. The public world is mostly safe, and kids are mostly capable of navigating it on their own and in small groups — the adults in America have chosen not to believe that, and written laws forbidding parents from allowing their children to even attempt it. These choices may have resulted in a few less kidnappings, but they…

A lot of this goes back to 80s and 90s daytime TV and its sensationalization of a small number of kidnapping cases. An example would be the Johnny Gosch case which almost single handedly ended the job of paper boy. (There is a crime podcast called Faded Out that looked deeply into this one, starting by examining the sensational claims but later finding a much more likely explanation.)

The top risk to kids outdoors is cars. Strangers don't even rank. >90% of child physical or sexual assaults are committed by someone the child knows.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#86

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:54 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#87

Post by Hitton » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:54 PM UTC

world32 wrote: post #56

wwdhx wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying that a country like Romania is not ethnically homogeneous is absurd. Gypsies exist but in low numbers and stay in ghettos. Muslims only exist in some countries of the south of the Balkans.

Ok fair enough, but then why is Romania such a sh*t-hole? (Sorry Romanians). Surely the racial homogeneity there should mean that things are better over there?

I'm form different Eastern European country so I can explain it to you pretty easily.

Communism. It's pretty much same reason in whole Eastern Europe. Some countries managed to recover faster for various reasons whether it was more useful industry which was pretty much centrally planned in whole Soviet block from Moscow, so some countries where more industrially orientated and other remained pretty much agriculture only.

Second important reason is geographical location, especially presence of wealthy neighbors - compare Czechia with Germany and Austria as neighbors to Romania whose economically best performing neighbor is Hungary (which is economically worse off than Czechia itself).

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#88

Post by Misdicorl » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:56 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #63

Misdicorl wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. This seems awfully reductionist. I think often the intent is more along the lines of- "We want to live in a place where kids can walk to their friends house without an adult escort and/or play kickball in the street. We've observed that this becomes unsafe in places with high density populations, so lets prevent hi…

Germany has MUCH more kids walking around by themselves than the US, even with higher population densities and a complete lack of mandatory single family home zoning. The US actually sucks big time for child independence. If anything, these sort of car dominant neighborhoods make it more dangerous for kids to go around by themselves. Cars go much faster there. > There are lots of poor neighborhoods that are single fa…

> This entirely misses the point. The point isn't that every SFH-only neighborhood is affluent or even middle-class, it's that having all these SFH-only neighborhoods supports stratification.

Is that the point? Is stratification what we are trying to prevent by removing single family home regulations? I don't think it will work.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#89

Post by Simon_says » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #31

sampo wrote: post #2

> Lawmakers passed a first-in-the-nation cap on rent increases Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... https://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-rent-cont... > in an effort to spur new homebuilding, became the only state to eliminate single-family-only zoning in many…

> Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. It depends on the kind of rent control. Housing has important asymmetries it's reasonable to address through legislation. One is asymmetry in scale: you have one unit; landlords have many more. This gives them stronger negotiating power. Another is cost of change. It's much more expensive for me in…

> you have one unit; landlords have many more

You're comparing the wrong things. Negotiating power ultimately only comes from having other options. I could choose other apartments or the landlord could choose other tenants. The balance obviously depends on the individual market, but I think it's much closer to parity.

> It's much more expensive for me in time and money to move than it is for a landlord turn over a new unit.

I'm not so sure about this, either. It's a pain for landlords to move new tenants in, too. Most would prefer to keep good tenants around as long as possible.

Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws

#90

Post by graeme » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #65

bko wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It depends on the kind of rent control. Housing has important asymmetries it's reasonable to address through legislation. One is asymmetry in scale: you have one unit; landlords have many more. Not necessarily true. Sure , the landlord knows more about the apartment but you know more about yourself as a tenant. Landlord takes a huge risk in terms of allowing someone rent, especially given protections afforded to th…

"Its very expensive to fill a rental. A landlord usually needs at least a month to find another tenant. That's a month of foregone rent" If a month of foregone rent was such a huge burden to landlords then it wouldn't be so common for them to keep their properties vacant. Just recently, Los Angeles lawmakers have proposed a vacancy tax on the 111,000 vacant homes in the area.[1] [1] - https://www.latimes.com/local/la…

That doesn’t establish how common vacancy rates are. You need to look at the rate, not the number. And politicians passing a law means nothing about the fundamentals: you’d need to know if the law is well targeted, or instead perverse.

Do you have any data on how long properties are vacant? And if they’re vacant, are they vacant for a reason like renovations or construction?

Every landlord I’ve ever had has wanted to rent their place quickly. They hate missing a month.