You know, so long as we can agree that lack of supply is the core issue, the rest of all that is really just details haha. I'm not hugely confident of public housing's track record in the US (though there's obviously a lot that went into that), but whether it's new public housing or just loosening zoning and allowing the market to actually meet demand, I don't really care so long as there are units.
I totally agree that those are all good things, but I still see no real reason why the government has any business telling a homeowner who wants to split the building into a duplex that it's illegal, because reasons.
The political cost of actually abolishing SF zoning is definitely high though, and proposals to make SF homes less attractive are definitely more politically palatable.
A policy like this would apply to the entire market. All landlords have vacancies at least occasionally, due to renovations or bad luck.
It won't affect a tenant's ability to pay more, but a policy that increases ownership costs across the board means that there won't be cheaper alternatives in the competition, so the tenant will need to either find a way to pay the increase or they'll have to leave to a cheaper market. The highest rent the market can bear will go up if it's not possible to compete any further on lower prices.
That’s because it is easy to compete to sell food. Housing doesn’t work that way.
Agreed, but there's a lot that could be done to make it much much easier. For nearly a century, housing policy has been explicitly designed to make housing a productive asset for investment, which is a goal that's fundamentally opposed to housing being affordable.
Totally agree with you; this frustration is a direct and obvious result of decades of policy failures. I just worry that a lot of the ensuing anger is a bit misplaced.
I do think that there's been a sharp acceleration in recent years towards actual concrete steps, even though they're not super flashy and will take more time to see results. There's been real progress towards zoning reform, abolishing parking minimums, and other bits of red tape that have played a huge role in housing costs exploding.
Losses during the vacancy period would just be accounted for by bumping up the rent on tenants a bit. If you expect an average vacancy to cost you $1200, you'll just increase rent by $100 a month.
Sure, you could accept the loss, but if you're okay with that lower profit margin, you'd have already decreased the rent by that same $100.
Those empty houses are largely in places where people do not want to live. If you look at markets where people actually live, it's a pretty different picture. A shack in the middle of the field in Nebraska does not help a homeless man in Manhattan (and he almost certainly wouldn't take it if you offered it for free).
The fundamental misunderstanding in this view, IMO, is that greed is not something that landowners are uniquely equipped with. Rice is cheap as hell; are rice producers simply not greedy, and that's why rice is cheap? No, it's because an absolutely massive amount of rice is produced every day, and there's more than enough around to ensure anyone who wants rice can get it. Slightly more abstractly, there is more than enough supply to meet the demand. And like housing, cheap food is an absolute need. But unlike food, housing has been woefully underproduced for decades now in cities, and government policy has done a lot to cause that. It's illegal to build denser than single-family homes in most urban land, and the aim of policy has been more to protect people's investments rather than have housing be affordable - two goals that are fundamentally at odds with each other.
This isn't a coincidence, of course. A lot of federal housing policy goes back to the 50s and 60s, when you had suburbs that literally banned people of color from living in them. Housing policy was explicitly designed to advantage landowners and penalize renters, which is to say, wealthier white families pursuing The American Dream™ and urban Black families whose neighborhoods were systematically redlined and demolished to build highways for white suburbanites.
Food is also a basic human need, and markets seem to work well-enough for that. The core difference is that, while we have an extreme abundance of food to the point of waste, cities have been underbuilding housing for decades and there are far more people wanting to move to them than available housing units, so only the richest people get the housing. This puts a lot of positive pressure on housing prices
I actually agree with a lot of those proposals, but property ownership still comes with a level of long-term required investment that many people simply do not want and cannot afford. You could vaporize every landlord in New York City today, and the housing would still be incredibly valuable and far more expensive than most people could afford. I live here myself, and while I do hope to own some day, that's simply not financially feasible for me right now. People like me need to rent, and thus we need to rent from somebody. I only moved here a year ago, and I'm quite happy to have not had to combine all the hassle of moving with the added pressure of purchasing an asset that will tie up my net worth for a good few decades.
I can see some merit to systems like China or Singapore where land is leased directly from the government rather than private landlords (and arguably, given the existence of land and property taxes, it's a nominal distinction really), but still, you've got the existence of an intermediate owner that performs maintenance and searches for tenants, with the bonus and curse that that intermediate has no profit motive to actually perform that work.
Food also enjoys massive amounts of competition amongst what type of food to eat. Housing doesn’t.
You're actually on to something here. There is far far far more food produced than we could ever consume; so much that a massive amount is literally thrown away. Whereas with housing, we've been grossly underbuilding for decades now. If, in a year, you have 25,000 people who want to move to your city, but you've only added 2000 units of housing, then the inevitable result is that the richest 2000 people get the housing, and the owners of that housing can charge extremely high prices. Given this, why the hell is it literally illegal in most of the land in our cities to build anything other than a detached single family home that might house four or five people, as opposed to a duplex or small apartment building that could house two or three times as many?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't tweak around with the allocation incentives, but there's simply no where to policy your way around the fact that our urban areas have far too little housing for the amount of people who want to live there.
so the discussion should be on what we actually want and what changes we need to make to get there
Come now, that's far less entertaining than tribalistic shitfling on the Internet, and isn't that the real objective here?
Joking aside, a big solution that should absolutely be on that list is abolition of single-family zoning and a general reduction in the amount of red tape involved in building more housing. There are, and I am not kidding, multiple examples of middle-density housing being blocked because some local NIMBYs tried to have a laundromat protected as a historical landmark. In California, endless demands for environmental reviews can be weaponized such that the legal fees and wasted time make the financials for new housing fall through. And that's even assuming you can find land that isn't exclusively zoned for single-family homes. San Francisco has one of the worst housing markets in the country, and despite that, on 38% of its land, it is illegal to build housing that isn't single family homes. At the end of the day, if you have a million people looking for housing and only a third as many units available, you can either build more, or you can accept that only the richest third of them will get housing. One of those options is much more enticing if you're claiming to care about the poor.
This is a very sudden jump from "housing shouldn't be so expensive", which essentially everyone agrees with, to "we should abolish private property", which you'll find is a significantly less popular proposal.
