
Why affordable housing is scarce in progressive cities - jseliger
https://www.curbed.com/2018/11/16/18098432/rent-housing-affordable-generation-priced-out
======
AnthonyMouse
> a shortage of new construction, a lack of tenant protection

"Tenant protection" \-- especially rent control -- is a nontrivial cause of
the shortage of new construction. High rents are a signal to developers that
there is money to be made constructing new housing. If it's not possible to
make the money, they won't do the construction, which is what rent control
causes.

You get a population of existing residents with rent controlled apartments,
who then have no incentive to fix the housing shortage or eliminate rent
control, but insufficient construction going on and consequently even higher
prices for people who didn't get a rent controlled apartment in 1975.

(Restrictive zoning is another, independent cause of the same problem, and the
two compound each other.)

~~~
hristov
This is not how rent control works in any city in the US that I know of.
Everywhere I know of rent control only applies to significantly older
buildings. Which means that new buildings can charge much higher prices, which
means that rent control actually encourages new buildings.

The only time some type of rent control applies for new buildings is when they
are specifically built as "affordable housing". This usually happens when a
developer is required to build affordable housing to pay back for some favor
he/she received from the city.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Everywhere I know of rent control only applies to significantly older
> buildings. Which means that new buildings can charge much higher prices,
> which means that rent control actually encourages new buildings.

New buildings are what become older buildings. If that causes them to become
less valuable, they become less valuable immediately because the future loss
gets priced in, making them less valuable to construct.

And older buildings also become newer buildings. In most places with a housing
shortage there is already a structure on any given piece of appropriately
zoned land. To get more housing, you have to knock something down and replace
it with something bigger, or subdivide an existing building with fewer, larger
apartments into one with more, smaller ones etc. That can't happen if the
building is full of existing rent controlled tenants who can't be removed (and
have strong incentives to never leave).

~~~
hristov
In all the major cities I know of (and this includes san francisco and los
angeles), if there is rent control it is set for buildings older than a fixed
date (usually somewhere about 1979). So no, newer buildings will not become
covered by rent control unless the laws are drastically changed.

Furthermore, in California the Ellis act allows landlords to mass evict rent
controlled tenants in order to demolish a building for new construction, so
your second point is not valid either.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Furthermore, in California the Ellis act allows landlords to mass evict rent
> controlled tenants in order to demolish a building for new construction, so
> your second point is not valid either.

That would still apparently prevent the building from being subdivided into
smaller units or otherwise reconfigured/improved for higher density.

And your point seems to be not that rent control isn't a problem but rather
that some places are already phasing it out -- which is good, but presents no
aid to the people who continue to propose expanding it or retaining it in the
areas it isn't already on its way out.

------
skybrian
A philosophical question: is it ever okay for someone to have to move away to
find affordable housing? Or do we say that once someone becomes resident of a
community, they should be able to live there forever?

(This isn't just renting; there are similar issues with home owners and
property tax increases.)

~~~
SolaceQuantum
I think the greater context here misses the trauma behind being forced to move
out of a home. Being separated from your social network, familiar
surroundings, into a new and unknown environment can be highly traumatizing to
the people who move and the community which loses its members. Children have
their educations interrupted, elders lose a family of support, adults need to
forge new friendships in a time where we know the majority of friendships
occur in childhood.

The greater question is if it's okay for someone to undergo the trauma of
being moved because they can no longer afford the geographic location that
they didn't choose to be born and raised into.

~~~
skybrian
Does it have to be a trauma? After all, most people don't live with their
parents forever. Finding your own place is a rite of passage.

Most college students graduate and move somewhere else.

One way of preventing trauma would be to make sure people don't have to move.
Another way would be to make moving something to look forward to, rather than
a trauma.

~~~
orcdork
Yes, of course having to move due to no longer being able to afford living in
the place you've lived on for say 10+ years, downsizing probably not only in
living space, but also quality of surroundings, is comparable to leaving your
college dorm in your early 20s. I guess one way of preventing trauma is
pretending it doesn't exist by making ridiculus comparisons.

~~~
skybrian
It wasn't intended to be that close an analogy, but okay, here's another
scenario: many retirees in the Northeast move to Florida and love it.

(And if you don't like that scenario either, maybe you can come up with a
better one?)

------
jayd16
These article are pretty ridiculous and I see this political bent more and
more on here.

The article/book makes a huge leap in assuming progressive cities are somehow
worse at housing. The reality is people actually want to live there.

The most densely populated cities in the US, and in general all cities, lean
left politically. Finding new housing is important but we're really losing
perspective on how successful these policies have been historically.

Its a silly as writing an article about NASCAR crashes. They must be terrible
drivers.

~~~
Domark
The problem is, I've been hearing about these problems since I lived there in
1995.

1995 would have given an intelligent species enough time to build a money-
losing, poor-people housing skyscraper or two. Yes building vertically in
crowded places is a challenge and expensive but those are just excuses.

Since 1995 they could have figured out a way to get the job done, so now we
have to examine what the problems are.

~~~
gaadd33
Isn't that what the "towers in a park" style of public housing from the 60s
and 70s are? From that we've found that it isn't a good solution, eg
Cabrini–Green Homes or Robert Taylor Homes

I think people have been looking into these issues for far longer than 1995.

~~~
twelvechairs
Speaking as someone who works in this field theres a lot weve learned about
towers. Suffice to say dont build them in the middle of nowhere, for the
poorest in society only, and with acres of non-defensible space in front.

The best planning in cities today is building transit oriented development at
a scale to match your city's housing need. Do it in the right places with a
reasonable design and it works great

------
Shivetya
When community activist groups combined with grand standing politicians can
intimidate builders into giving up a fourth if not more of their units at
below costs and best yet turned over to "management groups" appointed by the
activist groups who are but extensions of the politicians election machine
what do you expect?

You can find stories similar to such all over the place. San Francisco
recently had a 117 unit fall apart after all the conditions and accommodations
of all "aggrieved" parties got their share and drove the costs beyond
profitability.

of course you get the typical political bs from the politicians and activist
who always claim "if developers are willing to work with us they can get
approved quickly" but that is the rub, the approval usually requires far too
much outlay on the builder which in combination of set asides for "affordable"
units then forces the rest of the units up a tier or two eliminating the
market the developer was aiming for.

this isn't about affordable anything, its about political power and money.
many of these "activist" groups which claim to represent the people and use
that as a basis to go to court to block builders are in fact merely extensions
of various political election campaigns.

------
darren0
Can some explain why affordable housing is a problem that requires government
policies to prevent? For example, I can't afford a home in Malibu, so I don't
live there. I don't understand the issue. Why does government need to step in
and fix this?

~~~
zagzagal
While not a federal, or even state issue it is very much a locality issue. One
which is unique to a given locality and is well within their rights to
legislate.

It's for the same reason right to farm laws exist, no community wants to give
up its right of self direction to outsiders. Even if in many ways it's not to
benifit of its neighbors.

~~~
darren0
Right, if people who live there want to prevent apartments from being built,
that will drive up costs. Why does that need to be prevented? Why is the lack
of affordable housing a crisis?

Eventually it seems the market will level out. If people can't afford to live
there then industries will leave. At that point people living there will have
to decide if that's okay or they should change policy to be more accompanying.

~~~
zagzagal
Most communities try and walk a fine line trying to prevent boom and bust
cycles.

While creative destruction is a necessary part of free market theory it is
beyond scary when it comes to peoples communities. That fear and the reality
that some of the losers of the market correction are people that one may know
personally are why that true free market is never seen in housing.

------
kokokokoko
If it is bad policy, then can someone help explain why unaffordable housing is
currently a world-wide issue?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> If it is bad policy, then can someone help explain why unaffordable housing
> is currently a world-wide issue?

1) Because the incentives for enacting the bad policies are widespread, so the
bad policies are widespread, so the problem is widespread.

2) It isn't. See cities like Houston and Tokyo which have lower housing costs
than San Francisco or NYC.

~~~
kokokokoko
It does appear to also be a problem in Tokyo [1] Houston's economy is still
recovering from a natural disaster [2]

Are we sure this is not simply the product of a global shift towards
populations migrating to urban centers? And maybe we might want to look at
what is causing this rapid migration? For example economic growth has almost
always gone hand in hand with rapid urban migration.

"We know of no coun- tries that either achieved high incomes or rapid growth
without substantial urbanization, often quite rapid." [3]

So it appears that your solution to reducing housing prices, caused by
economic growth, is to increase construction, which causes economic growth,
which causes urbanization, which then leads us back to rising housing prices.

What am I missing here?

[1] [http://japanpropertycentral.com/2018/02/rent-in-tokyo-
reache...](http://japanpropertycentral.com/2018/02/rent-in-tokyo-reaches-
record-high/)

[2] [http://cokinoslaw.com/flood-hurricane-harveys-180-billion-
im...](http://cokinoslaw.com/flood-hurricane-harveys-180-billion-impact-
houstons-economy/)

[3]
[https://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPREMNET/Resources/489...](https://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPREMNET/Resources/489960-1338997241035/Growth_Commission_Vol1_Urbanization_Growth.pdf)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> It does appear to also be a problem in Tokyo

Those prices are still substantially lower than they are in NYC or San
Francisco. Notice also that despite the volatility the current price is ~3%
higher than it was when record keeping began a decade ago. This is
significantly below the rate of inflation. And the bottom of that graph isn't
at zero -- it's also exaggerating the level of volatility.

> Houston's economy is still recovering from a natural disaster

That would be relevant if they were problematically high prior to the
hurricane.

But would you prefer San Antonio? Phoenix? Jacksonville?

> What am I missing here?

Saturation. If the NYC metro area (8683 sq mi) had the population density of
Mumbai (73,837/sq mi), it would have population 641 million. The US population
is 325 million. Therefore that population density is impossible in the NYC
metro area (without a massive, implausible degree of international immigration
exceeding what's permitted under existing law). Moreover, it can absorb even
fewer additional people at the same time as the same occurs in San Francisco,
Chicago, Dallas, Boston, Los Angeles, etc.

There exists a point where there is enough housing for everyone who wants to
live in that city, at which point building more does not attract new
residents, it only lowers prices for existing residents (as more landlords
compete to not be the one with an empty unit).

------
dogma1138
“Progressive” gentrified, upper middle class and above and predominantly white
while I have no idological problems when these form naturally through a free
market I would call them exactly progressive either.

------
oldmancoyote
How important is this issue to HN readers? 41 points and 94 comments in 6
hours on a Sunday afternoon shows a powerful gut reaction.

------
hristov
This is a very insightful article. Every discussion about high prices in
cities usually ends into a big argument about rent control, but, in my opinion
this is rarely the real issue. Rent control laws in the US are rather weak,
and the percentage of rent controlled units is ever decreasing.

I think this article points to a much more important issue. And that is
existing real estate owners acting to keep the value of their holdings as high
as possible, i.e., to keep prices as high as possible. A lot of the wealth in
America is locked up in real estate and this is especially the case in large
cities. The landowner lobby (although they do not call themselves that) is
quite powerful.

Actually the fact that rent control comes up so often as an issue is just
another piece of evidence that the landowner lobby is so powerful that they
are able to completely control the conversation. When faced with what is
basically an accusation that they are gouging the population they turn it
around and declare that the few weak laws that slightly reduce their ability
to gouge are really the problem.

And while rent control is a point of contention, the real way the landowner
lobby keeps prices high is by restricting new construction. This is a much
more important factor than rent control.

A very important issue here is that homeowners and landlords are much more
active in most political processes. If one person decides that he will
dedicate his life on ownership of land and will make that the main source of
his income, he will easily see that it is important to devote time and energy
in a lot of the rather tedious local political processes. If a second person
decides to dedicate his life to some type of profession or art instead, then
local politics tend to become a bore and a time waster. But then the second
person is not at the table when important decisions are made and his interests
are negatively impacted.

So the general answer is to be more active in politics. But how to be more
active in politics?

Here is an issue that the article did not really touch upon. The most
important requirement for more construction and higher density living is the
availability of infrastructure. Nobody will approve high density buildings
without the infrastructure, nobody wants to create Mumbai style tenement
cities.

And the most important and most expensive part of infrastructure is
transportation. Look at any successful large city in the world -- they are
usually defined by their subway system. After all the subway is the only sane
way to move large number of people around in a very dense environment.

In fact the main battle against development of LA has been fought for the last
20-30 years over the LA subway. There have been some very successful attempts
to slow down and block the development of the subway launched mostly by
neighborhood groups. As a result the subway came in much later than originally
planned and the most important and most desired line (the purple line) is
still only a tiny fraction of what it should be.

So if you want to help create more housing it is always best to vote in favor
of new transportation projects, especially high density high efficiency
projects, like the subway.

------
zeroname
> Why affordable housing is scarce in progressive cities

Because progressives don't like the poor, they just hate the rich.

------
someguydave
Progressives should explain why good neighborhoods and schools and high home
values are more important than inclusive housing policies.

~~~
kasey_junk
“Progressives” largely believe those things aren’t mutually exclusive. So why
should they explain your position?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
High home values and inclusive housing policies are directly opposed. They
exclude anyone who can't afford high housing prices.

~~~
kasey_junk
Yet there is public housing in Chelsea NYC.

We can argue about how to do ‘inclusive housing’ but the idea that it
immediately precludes high home prices doesn’t hold up to basic inspection.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Yet there is public housing in Chelsea NYC.

This is a classic political maneuver. Build two units out of a thousand with
regulated prices, then declare victory because you can point to one person
paying an affordable price, even though it's being sold below market at
restricted volumes and isn't available to everyone.

If the same units were available at that price but in unrestricted quantity to
every member of the public, the high prices of competing housing would fall.

------
shse
Cities are full. US population has doubled since 1960. If we get rid of zoning
we will end up with overpopulated cities like Hong-Kong, Jakarta, Moscow,
Tokyo.

~~~
mrep
No they are not, look at the varience in population density of us cities [0]
and it's pretty obvious lots of them can expand. The real problem is that jobs
are highly local and people want to live in an area where their are lots of
job opportunities. Thus, cities with lots of good job opportunities beget more
job opportunities like how Amazon chose New York instead of a smaller city.

[0]:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population)

~~~
shse
When you build more appartments, more people come to the city. It’s a positive
feedback loop. The result is a city with terrible quality of life. The city no
one wants to live in. Only then it will stop growing.

~~~
ajmurmann
Yeah, like Tokyo. It's still one of the most amazing places on the planet,
with great culture, ready to get around and even beautiful green spaces. But
soon it will continue to grow and become awful...<\s>

