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

The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

derekthompson.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 817 posts

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#301

Post by jordanb »

bluGill wrote: post #174
nathan_compton wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I get it. But we also use liberal and I think in this particular case its worth drawing the distinction between these two "camps" of the democratic party.

The meaning of liberal and conservative has shifted so much over time that the term is now useless. The original meaning of liberal was about not killing you neighbor if they were a different religion - from which we get freedom of religion. That slowly expanded to things like freedom for slaves and women voting.

This is Phil Ochs describing liberals in 1966

In every American community, you have varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally.

They haven't changed.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#302

Post by tptacek »

didibus wrote: post #295
tptacek wrote: post #5

So much of the journalism we read is heavily processed and barely-reported and it's startling to see how much of a superpower simple shoe-leather reporting actually is. Derek Thompson's an incredibly sharp writer, but not really a subject matter expert on housing economics; all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed. We're often so down on j…

> all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed Did it collapse, or he simply created another dubious narrative to replace the previous one?

It collapsed.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#303

Post by HDThoreaun »

gopher_space wrote: post #166
tptacek wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't actually worked this example out. Try it. The wealthy buy the extra supply; they now compete with all the existing supply for tenants. What happens next?

Collusion using online management services to fix prices across a region. I think Washington State is working on legislation around rental services due to this already being a problem in the Seattle area. “Extra supply” is added to the portfolio containing housing they’ve already purchased. They own part of “existing supply” too.

Collusion on housing only works when there is a shortage. As soon as the shortage ends units go unfilled and landlords defect. Collusion works in industries where supply can change in the short run, tough to do that in real estate. Real estate elasticity is so high though that small collusion can work, but only if there is already a shortage. Yet, again the solution is just build more.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#304

Post by tptacek »

regularization wrote: post #257
tptacek wrote: post #5

So much of the journalism we read is heavily processed and barely-reported and it's startling to see how much of a superpower simple shoe-leather reporting actually is. Derek Thompson's an incredibly sharp writer, but not really a subject matter expert on housing economics; all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed. We're often so down on j…

> how much of a superpower simple shoe-leather reporting actually is. Derek Thompson's an incredibly sharp writer, but not really a subject matter expert on housing economics; all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed. Matthew Stoller called the people Derek Thompson called, and some said Derek had misrepresented their opinions. So shoe lea…

Link? I'd love to read countervailing reporting.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#305

Post by rcpt »

energy123 wrote: post #297

Here's the political solution: Do both public housing and zoning reform. Unlike zero-sum political disputes where there is a winner and loser, this is a rare issue where both camps can win without impacting the other camp. What we should not do is give the left their worst ideas, like rent control or stopping AirBNB. Give them their best idea, which is public housing.

You realize that local busybodies hate both of those things and they're the only political group that matters

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#306

Post by jordanb »

tptacek wrote: post #296
jordanb wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many leftists have a problem with zoning deregulation. I've been in leftist housing advocacy circles. I studied urban planning. 1) Every leftist I know who cares about housing hates euclidean zoning 2) Every leftist I know who cares about housing hates down-zoning 3) Every urban planning class I took said that euclidean zoning is bad Euclidean zoning is the principle land use regulation in the United States because…

I live and am politically active in a front-line municipality for these issues (Oak Park, IL --- the actual redlining bastion of the western suburbs, a 4.5 square mile gravity well for Cook County school funding so egregious it was one of the first examples in Johnny Harris's NYT "Blue States, You're The Problem video) and I'm telling you, straight out, leftist defenses of existing zoning rules are a very real thing.…

I guarantee you all your Oak Park neighbors are the type who were With Hillary in 2016 (probably calling Bernie a sexist) and voted for Biden and against progressive income tax in 2020. They are not leftists. You seem to be having some trouble understanding the difference between democrats, liberals, and leftists.

T&K are fundamentally dishonest about the role of euclidean zoning in american cities, who supports it and why it's so powerful. Their basic project is to strip environmental and labor protections by tying them to euclidean zoning and saying "it's all the same."

And by the way, they may get their way (Newsom is already forcing repeals of environmental protections in California while toasting Klein) but at the end of the day euclidean zoning will still be around, because it is supported by people who are way too powerful.

Another by the way: I remember fighting the big Chicago rezoning in 2004. They had us chasing our tails by trying to double the parking requirements and letting us fight to get them back down to where they were in the old code, feeling like we won a big victory.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#307

Post by woooooo »

lanfeust6 wrote: post #254
woooooo wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Keep in mind: Klein and Thompson's political project is a plan to organize the Democrats. This is the crux of the opposition. It's not that leftists necessarily have a problem with zoning reform, I don't at least, its fine. It's that the "abundance" project is a play for control of the party by the same losers who gave us Biden and Kamala. People on the left feel that we need to be speaking to economic problems tha…

> People on the left feel that we need to be speaking to economic problems that regular people face. Housing is that. This just sounds like you want populist things and the outcome doesn't matter. Like price controls and tariffs.

Its about the message. Centering the message on something that has indirect, timelagged effects and isnt even actionable at the federal level is terrible messaging strategy for the national party.

"The dairy industry ran ads saying milk was good for you for 20 years and sales went down. Then they tried 'got milk' and sales went up" https://youtu.be/keCwRdbwNQY?si=kc14Ms7ECxglNgbl

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#308

Post by rcpt »

gopher_space wrote: post #166
tptacek wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't actually worked this example out. Try it. The wealthy buy the extra supply; they now compete with all the existing supply for tenants. What happens next?

Collusion using online management services to fix prices across a region. I think Washington State is working on legislation around rental services due to this already being a problem in the Seattle area. “Extra supply” is added to the portfolio containing housing they’ve already purchased. They own part of “existing supply” too.

There are too many competing landlords to form a functional cartel.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#309

Post by [deleted] »

Animats wrote: post #130
tptacek wrote: post #5

So much of the journalism we read is heavily processed and barely-reported and it's startling to see how much of a superpower simple shoe-leather reporting actually is. Derek Thompson's an incredibly sharp writer, but not really a subject matter expert on housing economics; all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed. We're often so down on j…

Reporters used to start at something like the City News Bureau.[1] For a century, the City News Bureau covered local news for Chicago and sent it in to the local newspapers. Lasted until 2005. Young reporters started there, covering every police station, every major crime, every major fire, every major trial, and getting the facts right, or else. The bureau`s unsentimental motto: ”If your mother says she loves you, c…

[deleted]

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#310

Post by gsf_emergency_2 »

Animats wrote: post #130
tptacek wrote: post #5

So much of the journalism we read is heavily processed and barely-reported and it's startling to see how much of a superpower simple shoe-leather reporting actually is. Derek Thompson's an incredibly sharp writer, but not really a subject matter expert on housing economics; all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed. We're often so down on j…

Reporters used to start at something like the City News Bureau.[1] For a century, the City News Bureau covered local news for Chicago and sent it in to the local newspapers. Lasted until 2005. Young reporters started there, covering every police station, every major crime, every major fire, every major trial, and getting the facts right, or else. The bureau`s unsentimental motto: ”If your mother says she loves you, c…

Sorry to derail this thread on journalistic merit..

I just thought that this other thread on housing microeconomics is worth pointing out, to anyone who might be excited about the prospects of enlightened tax policy

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44750961

>This is most clear in insurance data where replacement cost is isolated from land value.

Post reply on HN