this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
870 points (97.1% liked)

News

23413 readers
2399 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tal@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

My understanding is that rent control backfired pretty spectacularly in the long term.

Yeah, the basic problem with rent control is that it creates the opposite long-term incentive from what you want.

Rentable housing is like any other good -- it costs more when the supply is constrained relative to demand, costs less when supply is abundant relative to demand.

If rent is high, what you want is to see more housing built.

What rent control does is to cut the return on rents, which makes it less desirable to buy property to rent, which makes it less desirable to build property, which constrains the supply of housing, which exacerbates the original problem of not having as much housing as one would want in the market.

I would not advocate for it myself, but if someone is a big fan of subsidizing housing the poor, what they realistically want is to subsidize housing for the poor out of taxes or something. They don't want to disincentivize purchase of housing for rent, which is what rent control does.

[–] hark@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Where's all this housing being built as a result of sky-high rents? If they are being built, they're being snatched up immediately by "investor" parasites.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

New construction is happening. Just not as fast as we need it. And the cost of materials isn't helping.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What are you referring to? I don't see all this new housing being built. I only know about three active sites in my city. I also know that our local zoning board has been rejecting applications because of neighborhood character.

I would run to serve but it's an appointed position. Which yeah not great.

[–] delicious_tvarog@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I also know that our local zoning board has been rejecting applications because of neighborhood character.

Sounds like you already know what one of the biggest issues is.

It's so bad in California that the state legislature has been passing laws directly addressing city zoning boards that won't approve housing.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you subsidize housing you create increased demand for housing, ultimately leading to rent going up for all.

Zoning reform is the solution. Cities are no place for single-family exclusionary zoning and height limits on housing

[–] tal@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you subsidize housing you create increased demand for housing, ultimately leading to rent going up for all.

So, as I said, I'm not an advocate of subsidizing housing out of taxes. I'm just saying that people who are arguing for rent control are arguing for a policy that tends to exacerbate the problem in the long run.

Subsidizing housing doesn't normally run into that, because it's normally possible to build more housing.

It is true that that's not always the case, and one very real way in which that can not be the case is where there have been restrictions placed on constructing more housing. If housing prices are high, the first thing I would look at is "why can't developers build more housing, and are there regulatory restrictions preventing them from doing so". It is quite common to place height restrictions on new constructions, which prevents developers from building property to meet that demand, which drives up housing prices (and rents). In London, there are restrictions placed that disallow building upwards such that a building would be in line-of-sight between several landmarks. That restricts construction in London and makes housing prices artificially rise. Getting planning permission may also be a bottleneck. I agree with you that that sort of thing is the thing that I would tend to look at first as well: removing restrictions on housing construction is the preferable way to solve a housing problem.

I remember an article from Edward Glaeser some time back talking about how much restrictions on construction -- he particularly objected to the expanding number of protected older, short buildings -- have led to cost of housing going up.

How Skyscrapers Can Save the City

Besides making cities more affordable and architecturally interesting, tall buildings are greener than sprawl, and they foster social capital and creativity. Yet some urban planners and preservationists seem to have a misplaced fear of heights that yields damaging restrictions on how tall a building can be. From New York to Paris to Mumbai, there’s a powerful case for building up, not out.

By Edward Glaeser

It looks like it's paywalled, so here:

https://archive.is/jRQIm

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Ah if you meant subsidizing housing construction I'm 100% with you

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 4 points 1 year ago

Part of the problem with rent control is that it doesn't subsidize the building of new housing. The times in which housing prices dropped in the USA were typically when a government either opened up land to development, subsidized the building of housing, or built the housing themselves.