
Positive Steps to Encourage Housing - jseliger
https://www.city-journal.org/legislation-housing-affordability
======
joe_the_user
_" In areas where land is cheap, lowering the cost of homebuilding is
paramount"_

I live in a rural area and the city and county put up huge road blocks to
building legally while a tremendous number of trailers and shacks are spread
about the landscape.

But, BUT!, if someone is looking at find a way OUT of America's horrible
housing conundrum, more cheap housing on cheap land is terrible, horrible, a
nightmare.

I mean, the _reason_ that my county scams new builders for $30-50K just to
start is that the county's infrastructure bill has become unsustainable, like
America in general has become unsustainable.

 _The American love affair with low-density development is going to leave this
country drowned in a pool of opioid induced vomit if things turn don 't around
in the next 10-20 years._

Effectively, the history of settlement of this country and government policy
result in a freeway-subdivision-strip-mall model of development that is
unsustainable on a practical, literal level. That is; outer-ring development
involves investments fated to evaporate into nothing. The capital of America's
once glorious middle class has become smoke from this effect.

The only path to things not imploding worse than they already have is to
create high density urban development and the infrastructure needed to support
it. A lot will have to change for that to happen. But as Margaret Thatcher
said, "There is no alternative".

------
elihu
> An older Arizona law might offer a template for other states looking to
> balance private property rights with local public interests. Rather than
> chipping away at specific local restrictions, the state passed the Property
> Ownership Fairness Act in 2006, reframing the question of regulation in
> terms of eminent domain. If a local regulation diminishes the value of land
> by imposing new limitations on the use of the property— such as increasing
> the minimum lot size or changing the zoning to lower-value uses—the
> jurisdiction must compensate the property owner for his loss. Arizona’s
> approach helps achieve a middle ground, where neither the city government’s
> mandate nor the landowner’s property right is absolute.

I'm not so sure that's a good idea. On one hand, I like the general principle
of fairness at work and that a person shouldn't have to absorb the loss of the
value of a major asset simply because of an arbitrary rule change. On the
other hand, I don't think governments should have to pay costs associated with
fixing bad rules or addressing an injustice. Also, if government has to pay
for rule changes that reduce the value of a property, should they also receive
payments from property owners when a rule change increases the value of a
property?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
> Also, if government has to pay for rule changes that reduce the value of a
> property, should they also receive payments from property owners when a rule
> change increases the value of a property?

Don't they already through increased property taxes? In fact, if some rule
reduces the value of their property, perhaps the best compensation would be a
property tax reduction or even rebate?

~~~
jbay808
It probably depends on the jurisdiction, but many places (such as Vancouver)
adjust tax rates to meet the budget requirements. So if property values double
across the board, tax rates will halve, such that you're paying the same
number of dollars as last year. If only your property value doubles, then yes,
you'll pay more in property tax than you did last year, and your neighbours
less.

But anyway, the city certainly doesn't get the value increase back in taxes,
and you could presumably sell your property and capture the increase before
paying more than a fraction back in tax.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Kind of true, but the city will make a grab for that value eventually.
Property taxes in Seattle, for example, have been scaling with increase in
property prices. California will re-adjust property tax valuations on sale of
property (encouraging people not to sell...). Why not pay $500/month in
property taxes on that $800k townhome?

And really, why would that be unexpected? As the value of the house rises, the
services that can be provided increase, often on direct demand of those house
owners themselves (they want good/better schools, for example).

~~~
munk-a
I think this is just that terrible America effect, governments are constantly
under attack for inefficient spending so they constantly fight to increase
revenue sources even when that increase isn't immediately necessary just so
they'll have some margin to safely jettison when they come under attack for
not spending all the money they're collecting.

It's extremely weird, but seems to be accurate, that the US is the only place
on earth where people become less trusted via the action of taking on public
service responsibility.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
It really isn't that though, governments never have enough money to provide
for all the things that their residents are asking for. It isn't really like
"oh, let's grab some more taxes now just in case we need it later", its more
like "how do we upgrade from a B-level city to an A-level one?" or worse: "how
do we fight off a downgrade from a B-level city to a C-level one?"

The American tax burden isn't really that bad compared to everywhere else in
the developed world, especially for the facilities that we demand (huge
houses, less density, lots of roads, nice schools with football stadiums,
etc...).

------
Pfhreak
We should be getting rid of the notion of housing as a commodity.
Pricing/rewarding building housing based on how well it houses people,
unifying the tax credits for housing (that disproportionately go to the
wealthy), building _and maintaining_ public housing (without requiring it to
be revenue neutral), rent control, increased tenant protects, and right of
first refusal for tenants/tenant coops when a property sells.

~~~
gibsonf1
It is not an accident that locations with rent control have the worst housing
crises. Rent control immediately discourages new construction and therefore
the starting rents go up as fewer units are available with growing
populations. New York and San Francisco are classic examples of the
destructive force that rent control has on affordable rents.

~~~
likpok
SF rent control does not apply to new construction. The argument that rent
control causes this is a little more convoluted: renters would support more
development if they were not shielded from the impact of not building.

SF has its own way of discouraging development via long discretionary review
processes.

~~~
aeternum
Rent control can still limit development even though it does not apply to new
construction. 2004 is an arbitrary date that will likely be bumped up in the
future. This is a looming risk for anyone looking to purchase rental properly
and therefore developers.

You're right though that the review process and other regulations such as the
requirement for some percentage of affordable housing units is also quite
significant.

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
As a R/E investor, one of the things I'm most cautious of is buying a building
that might end up in rent control. It's the difference in making a good
investment and losing a ton of money.

I like to consider myself a good person, but I have zero interest in renting
housing to people at a loss.

I know people can use some help, but I'm not that rich and life is too short.

------
korethr
I'm all for getting rid silly regulations, like one mentioned in the article
stating all houses must be faced in brick. But I hope attempts to rollback
needless regulations don't additionally throw away things like building codes.

When I was slightly younger, I might have grumbled that things like the
International Residential Code or the National Electric Code were a bunch of
stupid rules getting in the way of the eminently reasonable thing I wanted to
do, rules made by otherwise useless busybodies with nothing better to do with
their time. That is not my attitude today.

As I've been pulled into various wiring or handyman projects by family &
friends, had a chance to actually read some of the bits of the IRC or NEC, and
even lost my home to an apartment fire, I understand now that a lot of what I
might have previously decried as stupid rules actually make sense from an
engineering or safety perspective. These rules are informed by experience. And
while violating some of the rules or recommendations can result in only minor
annoyances, other violations can be dangerous, costing lives in an emergency
and even making emergencies more likely.

There's a saying that I've heard from pilots, "The FAR[1] is written in
blood". More generally that is, the rules are the way they are because not
doing it that way resulted in people dying. And I think the same holds true
for a not-insignificant portion of building code today.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be willing to question and criticize building code
to make sure it isn't being needlessly restrictive, and that it's living up to
its goal of making for safe, effective home design. But I think we should also
be willing to concede that some of the rules in building codes are a Good
Thing, even if it means that some of the ways we've achieved housing density
in the past can't be done as cheaply anymore, or at all.

1\. Federal Aviation Regulations

------
jelliclesfarm
I have always felt that housing in Singapore is sensible Altho I don’t think
it would work here

99 year leaseholds until recently..now Singapore citizens can purchase these
public Housing flats. Everyone is housed according to their means. 78.7% of
the population is housed in public housing at various home plans and sizes.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore)

------
davidw
Odd that Oregon's HB 2001 is not mentioned, as it's a big step.

~~~
downerending
It's a symptom as much as a cure. Oregon has immense amounts of available land
to build housing on, but it also has BA-like restrictions that remove most of
that from possible housing expansion. This law won't do much if that isn't
fixed.

(The law allows for duplexes to be built in single-family areas without
rezoning.)

~~~
davidw
Oregon's UGB allows cities to grow, just in a controlled way.

Absent that, and maintaining subsidies for driving, you get Houston or Phoenix
like sprawl.

HB 2001 allows up to 4-plexes in many cities.

You could actually get a _lot_ of housing out of that kind of development, it
turns out: [https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/add-housing-by-
allowing...](https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/add-housing-by-allowing-one-
triplex-per-city-block/)

Which makes sense, as most places in Europe are way more land-constrained than
the US and manage to house people by growing up and in, rather than only out.

~~~
downerending
I'd argue that Phoenix compares quite favorably to the BA or Portland. It has
an efficient transportation structure, and more importantly, interleaved
levels of housing that make it relatively easy to live near (within walking
distance even) to one's work, regardless of economic class. Except for the
rich, that's essentially impossible in the BA, and pretty near for Portland.

~~~
notJim
This is not born out by commute statistics. 86% commute by car in Phoenix
compared to 65% in Portland. If you're saying Phoenix can work well at an
individual level, I might agree, but as far as urban planning goes, I'd say
Portland is much better. Subjectively I've lived in both places, and Phoenix
is far far more car-dependent than Portland. Walking along those 6-lane
streets throughout the city, traversing massive parking lots through strip
malls does not make for pedestrian-friendliness.

~~~
munificent
Well, neither does 120°F summers. I think there's an argument that Pheonix
fundamentally can't be pedestrian friendly so optimizing for car-and-bus-
friendliness is a justifiable strategy.

~~~
davidw
Just because summers are hot doesn't mean there aren't a whole lot of days the
rest of the year when you couldn't get around quite happily by bike or on
foot. People get around by bike in Montreal in the winter.

With the right architecture, even hot places, like, say, Seville, Spain, are
pretty nice for pedestrians.

Transportation should be a "right tool for the job" thing, rather than "well
since I can't go to Costco with my 4 kids on a bike, bikes are totally useless
for everyone" thing.

~~~
whatshisface
If all the cars come out on the same day of the year, it doesn't matter if
it's only once a year, the roads have to be ready for it.

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
Phoenix is not THAT hot most days of the summer -- and it's barely hot outside
a few hours of the day outside of summer -- IFF you're in the shade.

Phoenix could've invested in trees and shade, and less in concrete to absorb
the heat, and it could be much more bearable.

------
wallace_f
Last decade was terrible for housing construction:
[https://reason.com/2019/12/23/the-2010s-were-a-terrible-
deca...](https://reason.com/2019/12/23/the-2010s-were-a-terrible-decade-for-
housing-construction/)

~~~
kube-system
Wonder how/if this correlates with current trends of newer generations
preferring to move from suburbs back to cities. Maybe it is becoming more
advantageous to renovate an older home in the city than to build new in a
suburb?

~~~
owyn
I think it's also because if you're a company that wants to make money doing
real estate related activity, it's easier and more profitable to just buy
existing buildings and sit on them than build new ones. This is a recent
trend, and home building companies do still exist but...

"Between 2011 and 2017, some of the world’s largest private-equity groups and
hedge funds ... spent a combined $36 billion on more than 200,000 homes in
ailing markets across the country. In one Atlanta zip code, they bought almost
90 percent of the 7,500 homes sold between January 2011 and June 2012; today,
institutional investors own at least one in five single-family rentals in some
parts of the metro area"

[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/02/singl...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/02/single-
family-landlords-wall-street/582394/)

------
linuxftw
There's plenty of affordable housing in America. It's all just in places
people don't want to live, like Cleveland.

People don't want to live there because there isn't any economic opportunity.
There isn't any economic opportunity because we shipped the jobs overseas.

Then, when the system finally imploded and people could no longer make their
mortgage payments, the taxpayers bailed out the banks that were making money
hand over fist.

~~~
OnlineGladiator
> Then, when the system finally imploded and people could no longer make their
> mortgage payments, the taxpayers bailed out the banks that were making money
> hand over fist.

I'm not happy about what happened either, but what do you think would have
happened if none of the banks had been bailed out?

~~~
larrik
Not OP, but at the time what I personally wanted to happen was the government
to bail out the customers, but not the banks themselves. Basically let the
institutions implode but not let depositors foot the bill. Clearly a
pipedream, though.

------
thatfrenchguy
> In areas where land is cheap, lowering the cost of homebuilding is
> paramount—as Georgians can attest. In Bryan County, for instance, new homes
> must include brick or “hardi-plank” siding, and facades must be limited to
> two materials. In Marietta, northwest of Atlanta, all walls must include
> brick, stone, stucco, or fiber-cement, while in Brookhaven, the walls must
> be brick-clad. These localities also ban cheaper materials, like vinyl
> siding. Such restrictive regulations drive up the cost of building and
> owning homes.

As a French person, what makes most of the US's subburbs ugly is the fact that
home owners have too much choice in how they build they house, and towns end
up being a mix match of stuff that's pretty ugly on average.

~~~
logicprog
Do we want affordable, plentiful housing, or arbitrary beauty, though?

~~~
jdkee
Those two are not mutually exclusive. See

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside,_Illinois](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside,_Illinois)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Forest,_Illinois](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Forest,_Illinois)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Park,_Illinois](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Park,_Illinois)

~~~
baddox
The median home value in Riverside is $400,000. The US median home value is
$250,000.

~~~
akiselev
Unless Riverside, IL sprang into existence within the last few years, I don't
think their contemporary real estate prices are relevant here. It's just as
(if not more) likely that their home values are a result of the unified
architecture.

You would have to look at land, material, and labor costs at the time the
majority of the homes were built.

