
The poor are better off when we build more housing for the rich - jseliger
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-poor-are-better-off-when-we-build-more-housing-for-the-rich/
======
mc32
My hope would be the supervisors for The Mission district as well as Chinatown
in SF would read this and take notice. But... given their politics, even if
they came to understand it, I don't think they'd come around on this, to the
detriment of those they purport to represent.

The politics in SF are weird. Many politicians do superficially irrational
things --they look good on the surface, but in effect they are detrimental. On
the bright side, the mayors themselves have been rational about attracting
business and bringing in development.

If you listen to KQED and their local reporters, it's like they'd like to have
SF frozen in time in 1992. As if they'd rather it go down the way of Detroit
rather than it become an economic center on the Pacific with the effects they
bring ("gentrification" population moves, etc.) They want to eat their cake
and have it too. And I understand it. It's very attractive. Let's have a great
economy BUT let's have it so all other things stay the same, no disruption, no
changes to neighborhoods, etc. Not even China can pull that off. Especially
when SF proper is all but 49sq mi. But if we will it that way hard enough...

~~~
rmason
I do not think that San Francisco can in any way be compared to the decline of
Detroit.

Poor civic planning, racism and the loss of jobs to non-union Southern plants
all paid a part in Detroit's population dropping by two thirds over a fifty
year span.

I read a great book over Christmas, Once in a great city by David Maraniss,
which covered Detroit at its peak from 1962-1964. Wayne State actually pretty
accurately predicted the city's future then but the report was ignored by
those in a position to stem its decline.

~~~
mc32
You're right, it's not the same. Detroit is a remarkable exception. But, SF in
the late 80's early 90's was not a place you might think would grow. People
were leaving the city for other bay area cities. Labor intensive industries
were leaving [bedding for one] SOMA, Tenderloin, Market were severely
depressed areas. And companies can go --just like they left Detroit; just like
they left SF in the late 80s early 90s.

------
timr
Funny thing about this theory: the luxury housing market in San Francisco is
in decline, and yet, it's still a seller's market for middle- and down-market
properties. [1][2]

This is not surprising to anyone who follows real estate. There's no such
thing as "a market for housing" \-- there are several markets, each moving
more-or-less independently, based on the net worth of the participants
involved. A drop in the prices of units in the Millenium Tower doesn't have
much of an impact on the rent of a pre-war hovel in the Mission.

The reason that the author doesn't understand this is because there's a latent
correlation at play: the communities with the most high-end construction _tend
to have the most construction overall_. But in a city like SF, where _all_ of
the new construction would be high-end (if so allowed), all bets are off.

Observing that properties become cheaper as they age is also silly. There are
_some_ properties that become cheaper as they age, but there aren't many of
them, say, in Pac Heights.

[1] [http://wolfstreet.com/2015/11/08/san-franciscos-luxury-
condo...](http://wolfstreet.com/2015/11/08/san-franciscos-luxury-condo-bubble-
turns-into-condo-glut/) [2]
[http://sfist.com/2015/11/09/at_high_end_sfs_housing_market_f...](http://sfist.com/2015/11/09/at_high_end_sfs_housing_market_fina.php)

------
zach
This is specifically related to the SF Bay Area and there is a link to the
source which has a easy-to-use Excel sheet of the data, so feel free to make
an awesome geo-mashup:

[http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345#Technical_App...](http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345#Technical_Appendix)

Also, the measure is not whether available housing is getting more expensive,
but whether low-income households are being displaced.

~~~
jimrandomh
They aren't being displaced. There's a good breakdown of the new construction
that's happened in [http://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/05/25/new-york-times-
make...](http://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/05/25/new-york-times-makes-up-
facts-about-sf-housing/) ; the short version is, new units are replacing
vacant lots and abandoned buildings.

~~~
raldi
I think you two are talking past each other because one of you is referring to
"being displaced" in the sense of it happening because of new housing being
built, and the other is referring to "being displaced" by the lack thereof.

------
gradstudent
I think the headline is only true if the new housing for the rich actually
increases the overall supply. Is that actually happening in SF?

~~~
jimrandomh
No one is tearing down old units. People are trying to get new units built,
mostly on vacant lots, and getting blocked by incumbent landlords who want to
see prices go even higher.

~~~
gradstudent
Tearing down old units is not enough. The construction works need to actually
increase the overall housing stock. If old tenement buildings disappear and
are replaced by oversize luxury apartments the overall stock goes down and the
situation for the poor is made worse.

~~~
thrownaway2424
That trend has been going on in SF for a long time. Dwellings are getting
larger steadily over many decades, and the number of people who live in a
dwelling has been getting steadily smaller.

~~~
greggman
Do you have any links that show this research?

~~~
thrownaway2424
The census tracks people per household. In 1940 this stood at 3.08. In 2010 it
was 2.26. A "housing unit" built today simply doesn't hold as many people as
it once did.

~~~
greggman
Isn't that the opposite of what you posted above? I thought you were claiming
dwellings are getting bigger in SF.

My intuition is that they are getting smaller. The old houses are all
subdivided. The new apartments are all small. The exception is some large
lofts in SOMA but there are plenty of tiny lofts in China Beach, 5th and
Mission, 8th and Mission, 10th and Market.

I'm not saying the average is smaller since I don't have any data only
personal observation. It sounds like your extrapolating that 2.26 people are
getting more space than 3.08 people were before?

~~~
thrownaway2424
Dwellings are getting bigger. All the new construction is larger than average
for the given number of bedrooms. Dwellings are larger, and fewer people are
living in each of them. Both of these factors are headwinds for the housing
market.

------
kincardine
Extremely misleading headline.

The poor are better off when there isn't a housing shortage, because
(surprise, surprise) the rich aren't the ones who are going to be forced out.

~~~
raldi
You say the headline is misleading, but you seem to be arguing the same point
as it. Could you go into more detail about why you feel it's misleading?

~~~
ethbro
Can't take a purportedly urban planning article seriously when it doesn't
explicitly mention zoning and density.

"More housing" is a pretty fluff summary of the intricacies of building
sustainable neighborhoods.

~~~
raldi
Do you take the original study seriously?

[http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345](http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345)

------
pennyless
There is nothing in the article to justifying the headline. What the headline
should have said is "more expensive housing keeps the prices of the expensive
housing lower". While true, this has absolutely no reflection on the
affordability, the latter being dependent on things like level of income and
such. If the cheap housing is removed to be converted to expensive, there is
less cheap housing, and it becomes less accessible, because more poor compete
for it.

~~~
stale2002
And if the total housing stock increases then that means that rich people
won't be buying up the poor housing stock.

For every "Rich Person Condo" that is built in SOMA, there is one less "Up and
Coming Apartment in The Mission" that gets taken up by a rich techie.

The rich are going to move to the city whether we like it or not. They have
the resources, they can buy out whatever place they choose. The only choice we
have to make is whether to build housing for them or to just let them displace
existing residents.

------
rokhayakebe
Everyone (myself included) cries about house prices, yet I believe there are
many many truly beautiful small cities and towns where you have great internet
access, safety and amazingly affordable housing. People just needs to have the
guts to move to these places and recruit friends and family and like minded
folks to join them.

~~~
Grishnakh
You seem to be forgetting that there are no _jobs_ in those places. Affordable
housing isn't worth jack when the only job you can get there is working at
Walmart, because there aren't any software development jobs there (for
instance).

The other problem is that if you're a young professional, you may very well be
single. Moving to a small city or town means you will not get a date, unless
you want to date some overweight, uneducated woman who has 4 kids and talks
about Jesus and guns all the time. If you're on this site, that probably isn't
the right demographic for you. You'd have better luck moving to a foreign
country; rural and urban America are _that_ different these days.

~~~
mehwoot
_unless you want to date some overweight, uneducated woman who has 4 kids and
talks about Jesus and guns all the time_

I think if I wanted to pick a comment as the canonical example what is wrong
with people on HN this would be the one.

~~~
jqm
His choice of words was harsh but I think he does have a fair point. The
demographics of rural areas don't make for good dating opportunities for
educated, secular professional young people.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Better or worse than San Francisco? (assuming a young male)

I think the last statistic I found was something like 140 single men in the
20s-30s age bracket for every 100 single women.

~~~
x3n0ph3n3
Competition is high, but at least there's a supply.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Assuming the women don't enter relationships with more than one guy at a time,
this is very literally a case of no supply.

~~~
raddad
The advantages of same sex marriages.

~~~
Grishnakh
Or, the advantage of polyamorous relationships.

------
myohan
what about the rich foreigners buying up the new development for the rich to
park their money

~~~
scotty79
They don't rent what they bought? That seems dumb from investment perspective.

~~~
avuserow
Some don't, and it can make sense. If you rent it out, then you have to be a
landlord, which puts you on the hook for repairs, finding tenants, and
collecting rent or evicting them. There's always the possibility of tenants
trashing the unit to a large degree. Some of these problems become way worse
when left untreated for a week, a month, or longer. I can imagine it making
sense for foreign investors to leave units empty in these circumstances.

In a similar vein, it's not just foreign investors. It might also make sense
to leave the grandparent's house empty while they are in the nursing home if
you live further away. If the grandparents don't need to sell the house to pay
for retirement, you'd probably come off cheaply enough to leave it empty, pay
the property tax and minimal utilities, rather than risk having tenants.

~~~
scotty79
> you have to be a landlord, which puts you on the hook for repairs, finding
> tenants, and collecting rent or evicting them

I imagine that there are companies that do exactly that for you taking
percentage of rent you'd get if you done all that by yourself. I also imagine
there are insurances for landlords and/or investors. There's so much money in
this when you approach this as investments (as opposed to not renting your
grandfather house because it's too much of a bother to clean it out and think
about) that I imagine no sane investor lets their property, they just bought
to stand empty.

~~~
undersuit
Property Management companies can be extremely inept. At the end of my last
lease the property managers for my place were fired for letting the owners
family home degrade so far. The property managers then tried to pass all the
damages off to my roommates and I, but we had extensive documentation of the
existing damages.

------
gizi
A housing crisis is pretty much always caused by government policies. It would
be perfectly possible to build a satellite town up to 50 miles outside a major
agglomeration connected by a high-speed transport link, such as a highway or
train. People would live up to an hour from their work places. Housing units
costing between 15 000 - 20 000 should be affordable even for the very poor.
It is important, of course, to make sure that there is enough local retail and
entertainment, but that is just a question of not regulating it out of
existence. Without heavy-handed government intervention, it would emerge
spontaneously. None of this would be economically a problem. The reason why it
does not happen, is government interventionism. Seriously, there does not
exist a problem in the world that is not made worse by governments.

~~~
jsprogrammer
A two hour+ daily commute does not seem ideal.

~~~
xivzgrev
It is if houses were much much cheaper.

Shit I had a 2 hr daily round commute INSIDE San francisco, taking bus from
the ocean and then walking to office. Id be beside my self if there was cheap
housing an hour commute away.

------
known
Sounds like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window)

------
reality_czech
Not a problem. Just move the poors to Flint and keep SF as low-density housing
for uber-douches.

------
swehner
Predictable drivel.

How about using international data?

------
staunch
It's an absolute crisis. The government should response just as it would in
the event of war time profiteering.

~~~
CyberDildonics
Or people could move, but sure it's just like war time profiteering.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck, or even close to it, no, you can't
move.

Edit: I'm curious what people are disagreeing with here. Do you think that
moving to a new city _doesn 't_ require expenditures?

~~~
raldi
Many landlords would love to be able to evict their tenants and replace them
with new market-rate renters, in exchange for paying the old tenants' moving
costs. Or even the moving costs plus a year's rent in the new location.

~~~
staunch
Not true in 99% of cases and no one said anything about paying below market
rate rent except you...

------
transfire
It's rough when the rich own numerous suites they rarely dwell in. They have
to give some middle-class loner a basement apartment with discounted rent to
meet occupant requirements. Yea, that'll help.

------
_cudgel
You know, it makes sense to me that increasing supply should drive down demand
and hence prices. But I frankly don't care.

The entire piece reads like an excuse to not do things for the poor. How about
we actually do things FOR THE POOR instead of tossing them scraps from the
tables of the rich?

~~~
xtqctz
Evaluating arguments on their merits seems nice, but mood affiliating feels so
good.

------
obrero
The language in this is Orwellian. She talks about how new construction is
needed and how people are stopping it. Then she points to examples where
people are not stopping it, just not letting developers do whatever they want
(the dangerous junk developers build near me is insane), then she goes back to
saying we need more housing.

No working class housing groups are trying to stop new buildings. They're just
asking for the same things groups like these have asked for almost a century.

Article translation: "Hack employee of the Washington Post Co. says wealthy
parasite developers and trustafarian transplants should ignore everything long
time, mostly working class black people want, they don't matter". Well why
not, that's the same message we've been hearing in this election campaign all
year.

~~~
raldi
_> No working class housing groups are trying to stop new buildings._

Ahem:

[http://www.savethemission.org/save_the_mission_district_yes_...](http://www.savethemission.org/save_the_mission_district_yes_on_prop_i_endorsements)

------
DiversityinSV
The data is nationwide. But California proves this NOT to be the case.

Sunnyvale/Mountain View have experienced 4 years of building new housing
without limits, yet every year is more expensive. The new units (rental or for
sale) are way higher than the average rent or price. (e.g. ALL the new housing
being built now in the peninsula is priced at $1MM or more) I fail to see the
point of pushing for new unregulated housing here besides saying in 30+ years
the middle class will move to housing built for the rich now. Sure... In 30
years the middle class won't exist. (and in SV I give it 12-15 years)

~~~
rst
It also neglects a huge factor in several hot markets, particularly New York:
rich out-of-towners buying apartments as investments, and leaving them
unoccupied. The owners aren't living there, and the buildings are typically
reworking or replacing former residential units where people actually resided,
so the net effect of that new construction is that the stock of housing
available to house people who actually live in the city is _reduced_.

~~~
danieltillett
This problem is so easily fixed via the tax system I am surprised it has not
been done already. Just tax high and rebate for residency.

~~~
Radim
Too naive, I'm afraid (as well as, in my opinion, misguided).

Just put yourself in the shoes of the investor. Government announces they're
gonna make you pay through your nose if no one "lives" in your apartment.

Leaving aside the dubious morality of such penalization (it's a slippery
slope!), is your reaction going to be "Oh noes, I am ruined! Better sell my
apartment now."? Or can you think of half a dozen simple, practical ways
around it?

I bet you have already.

~~~
danieltillett
It is very hard to get around residency because someone living at that address
needs to pay income tax. You can even rebate back the occupancy tax via the
income tax or sales tax systems.

If you don’t want to do this you can do random surveys of the suspect property
(say any property without a taxpayer) and if it is unoccupied more than a few
times and not registered as unoccupied then a big fine results.

Finally, the owner does not need to sell, just have tenants. What you want to
avoid is housing sitting empty or only being used as a holiday home a couple
of weeks a year.

~~~
Radim
Right. Let's send a secret police on "random surveys" to "suspect properties",
checking to see who lives in people's homes :-)

Did I mention "slippery slope"?

You don't have to be a diehard libertarian to find this whole concept somewhat
creepy.

~~~
danieltillett
I hate to break it to you but there are dozen of authorities that can come
around and inspect your property whenever they want - this slippery slope has
long gone.

I have no problem with someone with the appropriate authority politely
knocking on my door to see if I am home if I am claiming a large tax refund
for living there. The IRS and its fellow ilk are far more intrusive - the IRS
makes my life a pain as it is and I am not even a US taxpayer.

~~~
Radim
Where do you live that "dozen of authorities" can come around and inspect your
property at will?

I see where you're coming from, but as is probably obvious, I don't subscribe
to your "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" world view
on government surveillance. This seems to be the root of our disagreement
here.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument#Argum...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument#Arguments_for_and_against)

