Asymmetrical Information

" How does even the most left-wing politician believe that there is some way to improve the housing situation of the poor without, well, building more houses?"

Just an example of speaking out of both sides of your mouth?

I thought the same thing. Then I thought of overpasses and cardboard boxes.

One would hope that the "simply" is the hinge for the next line... "the answer is to build more units in x, y, and z with characteristics a, b, and c, and throw in programs lemur, monkey, and zebra for existing housing" etc. Either the simply is a qualifier or a rhetorical flourish, and that's where the difference lies.

I'm not saying he has good or workable solutions or is correct to oppose building at this junction or that he even said this, only that "he doesn't realize you need to build housing to help solve the housing crisis" isn't the only or even the most likely reading from that snippet alone.

because after the revolution, when the rich and the bourgeois have been dealt with, their housing can be subdivided up into many apartments for the proletariat... or else reapproriated into housing the vanguard of the proletariat as they contemplate how best to meet the need of the Workers!!!

AKA their leftists, and logic or actual outcomes have no place in rhetoric or politics.

Wasn’t Major "Republicans are worse than Hitler" Owens the dumbass who claimed that the twenty million dead slaves had been tossed over the sides of slave ships thereby changing the feeding patterns of sharks?

Looks like the road apple doesn’t fall too far from the business end of the donkey.

I wonder why the writer kept harping on the use of Union labor, as if driving up the costs of construction and slowing down the construction timetable was somehow a *good* thing...

In my neck of the woods, gov't encourages density with an "urban growth boundary." Conservatives hate it. So I guess use of gov't power is bad, no matter what the outcome?

Ivan: Well, let's see, the general libertarian position is "let people do what they want on their own property", meaning that restrictions on high-density housing in urban areas, and urban growth boundaries in what I assume is my old home town of Portland, OR are equally pernicious.

I'm no fan of zoning, but we shouldn't talk as if the number of jobs/residents in NYC is fixed. If more housing is built, probably some people will move into it. If it's not built, some people will probably live (and likely work) somewhere else where there is housing being built. I'm not convinced that the number of homeless in NYC will change at all.

That's an interesting point ed. Sort of the same problem they have in LA, where everytime they expand a freeway, the traffic gets worse.

I personally think it's worth the risk. At some point, eventually, demand goes down and then so do prices. And regardless of the misconception, although people like Jane and I love living in the city there are many people who love the burbs. It would be nice if those people who wanted to live in the city could, which would mean that the prices of the burbs would go down.

The NY Times Magazine has a very interesting article on the housing market. The author mention/cites a study that shows a (strong?) correlation between restrictive zoning regulations and high housing prices.

Not a surprise to anyone who believes in free markets.

The same folks want to preserve old neighborhoods, who dislike high-density housing, and like "sprawl" even less, are the same who say they want people to have access to affordable housing close to where they work (so they don't have to commute by car, heaven forbid). They can't have it both ways, and even thought they are econ-challenged, they must know it. Which leads me to think there is more tho their agenda than they let on. Which is probably something like full socialism.

These guys need to go visit *real* communal housing projects, to see what they look like. There are some particularly sunny ones around L'viv in the Ukraine.

Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers:
2020. Edward L. Glaeser, Joseph Gyourko and Raven Saks
Why is Manhattan So Expensive? Regulation and the Rise in House Prices
Abstract | Paper
In Manhattan and elsewhere, housing prices have soared over the 1990s. Rising incomes, lower interest rates, and other factors can explain the demand side of this increase, but some sluggishness on the supply of apartment buildings also is needed to account for the high and rising prices. In a market dominated by high rises, the marginal cost of supplying more space is reflected in the cost of adding an extra floor to any new building. Home building is a highly competitive industry with almost no natural barriers to entry, yet prices in Manhattan currently appear to be more than twice their supply costs. We argue that land use restrictions are the natural explanation of this gap. We also present evidence consistent with our hypothesis that regulation is constraining the supply of housing so that increased demand leads to much higher prices, not many more units, in a number of other high price housing markets across the country.

Ever since I visited Paris with my wife this spring for my 20th, I've been struck at how well they manage high density living. 20 times denser than many cities high density.

Regardless of the flaws Paris may have, I was very impressed by the number of people who manage to co-exist with the tourists ;)

It really takes a peculiar idiocy to bemoan sprawl while opposing greater housing density.

So now we know when the housing bubble will burst. A major shift in zoning policy, possibly triggered by a high court ruling.

After writing such a reasonable post, you must wonder at how dense Newman is about labor. Does he really think it is morally wrong to hire poorer people just because they are paid less than better-off (i.e. unionized) workers?

Isn't he as blind on this issue just as he claims other leftists are on high-density housing? I mean, how does caring for working people and wanting them to make good money sit with wanting all the construction work to be done exclusively by better-off workers?

We can continue along the same line of attack he directed against the pro-zoning people: what does Newman think will happen to the non-union workers, if potential Republican exploiters are turned into progressive Manhattanites and use explusively union labor? They will find other work, presumably less remunerative than constuction, making their climb out of poverty even more difficult.

I suppose he might keep invoking union labor (and make snarky comments about Republicans) as a token of his loyalty, to reassure his readers he did not turn right-wing or anything.

On the other hand Joe, if everyone used union labor then there would be more people being paid living wages.

Just sayin'....

How does even the most left-wing politician believe that there is some way to improve the housing situation of the poor without, well, building more houses?

Um, Jane, why would you suffer under the delusion that most politicans are remotely concerned with building more housing?

More housing units are most unwelcome by largish numbers of people who actuall turn out at elections (i.e., homeowners). Homeowners universally want to close the door behind them once they've gained entrance, because of all the nasty inconveniences that flow from having more neighbors, and from the simply downward pressure on housing prices that may accompany an increase in supply. At least in affluent corners of Blue America, opposing increases in the housing stock, and favoring onerous anti-development regulations, is simply (and unfortunately) a rational reelection strategy.

Sheesh!

I know that once I get my little piece of the American Dream, I shall leave no stone unturned in my untiring efforts to insure that I'm the very last person allowed to buy a new home in America -- ever!

On the other hand Joe, if everyone used union labor then there would be more people being paid living wages.

Using money from the tree out back, no doubt.

Because the higher labor costs surely would not get passed on to consumers (including said unionized workers) via higher prices of goods and services.

Just sayin'.

It really takes a peculiar idiocy to bemoan sprawl while opposing greater housing density.

And who was doing that? Lots of people bemoan sprawl, but there's no evidence Chris Owens is one of them. Suburban sprawl is about as relevant to a politician in central Brooklyn as farm subsidies.

I live in an old city/suburb near Boston and am glad they're putting up dense housing on brownfields everywhere you look.

And while quaint neighborhoods are preserved in Brooklyn, it means more people will be driven out into the suburbs to create more strip malls, SUVs, environmental degradation, and Republicans.

I started to laugh at this. Eek! Republicans! There's something about the 'burbs that turns you, inexorably, into a Republican! Bwahaha!

But maybe there is. Maybe it's like P.B. Almeida says: you get your own little patch of ground, and suddenly a government nanny doesn't seem quite so attractive.

If only housing were a simple issue of supply and demand. Moving where you live has many costs other than just the monetary costs of transporting your stuff, getting the old house ready to sell, and make sure the new house is ready for you to live in. There are issues of changing your entire life which are more costly the farther you move.

I don't want to live in a crowded neighborhood. I moved into a neighborhood I like. I don't want to have to move just because some developer decided to start buying up houses and building three-pack townhouses or apartments. What is my market recourse, though, other than moving? I could theoretically buy up all the houses in my neighborhood and then rent them out. I'm not sure that would fly with the bank.

Housing is not merely a commodity. It's a commodity that is directly tied into quality of life and every part of how you live. It's fine for economists and politicians to look at statistics and say this or that about how the housing market is working and what sort of housing we should be building or not building, etc... But meanwhile, people are living in these "housing units" and to many of these people, these durable assets are, you know, their home.

When you're talking about a market of millions of identical items, like chairs or barrels of oil, they really are interchangeable. But the house where I am raising my children may be worth a lot more to me than the market value. And another house with the same characteristics in a demographically similiar neighborhood is not the house I am raising my children in.

After all that and I'm not going to take a position. Both denser housing and sprawl have their advantages and disadvantages. Letting the market sort it out is not necessarily the best solution. This is the kind of thing local governments may actually be able to manage...

EI

"This is the kind of thing local governments may actually be able to manage..."

On what basis do you say that? And your argument about how housing is not perfectly fungible and has emotional and social resonance -- no debate about that here -- has little bearing on how much government interference in the housing market is ideal. It's a non sequiteur.

Earnest Iconoclast should move to New London, Conn., where the local government has proven its ability to manage the problem of intra-marginal property owners in fine style.

"How does even the most left-wing politician believe that there is some way to improve the housing situation of the poor without, well, building more houses?"

Very simple. Liberals want to improve the housing situation of the poor - by moving them somewhere else, where they won't have to look at them.

And it means more construction built with non-union, low-wage labor.

Well, yeah. And that's good. Unions (these days), just like low-density requirements in Brooklyn, help the priveleged few against the many.

(With the added bonus of inefficiency and corruption!)

As a San Francisco resident, I was at first surprised that the more left wing a candidate was the more they opposed new housing. The explanation they gave for high housing prices was "Landlord greed" or "Developer Greed." Many of them also professed to believe that building more houses would only increase the demand for more housing and so would actually increase prices (I guess housing is a Giffen good). I guess many people are like Earnest Iconoclast, let us set housing policy to fulfill the most self interested part of our personal interest (housing prices for owners with strict rent control for the long term residents so they won't have to deal with the consequences of slow growth) and then condemn anyone else who wants to move here as selfish yuppies.
A final point, having a tight housing market is great for local politicians. Since the privilege of building is worth so much, politicians can extort large sums for builders. One of our city councilman PUBLICLY bragged about how much money he was able to extract from a builder through donations to charities the councilman controlled. Somehow I had always thought that was illegal.

While I guess we should be grateful that Mr. Newman has at least recognized unintended consequence (however self-interested that recognition may seem), it does seem that ultimately his argument with Owens seems one of how best the bleating proles should be best governed by their moral and intellectual betters (sniff, sniff). Perhaps that shouldn't be too surprising when Owens is referred to as running in the district of his father (as if it were some sort of family property).

Kate,

No offense, but your comment regarding a living wage makes a pretty significant assumption. Specifically, you assume that construction labor demand is fairly inelastic. This is by no means clear. At the higher wage it is probable that a great many projects would be forgone and that the construction industry would shift production techniques to more capital-intensive alternatives. While this would provide a "living wage" to those lucky enough to remain employed, it would leave with no wage the most economically disadvantaged workers in the industry.

Just sayin'

I guess those who responded to my comment believe that there should be no government interference in housing markets and that all housing (and other land-use, presumably) should be entirely determined by the market and only by the market?

I never proposed a specific land-use plan or even a specific philosophy. I merely pointed out that housing isn't a commodity like washing machines and staplers and that some consideration should be given to the effect on existing homeowners (or rentors or whatever) of big changes in housing in the area. I'm not sure there is a good way for the market to reflect the externalities of, say, building loads of low-rent apartments all around a cluster of single-family homes that were previously surrounded by parks and low-density shopping.

I'm not saying that the government should step in and protect existing residents from any change... just that the impacts of changes on the existing residents should not be ignored.

The only reason why I thought local governments should do the relevant meddling is that the federal government would screw anything like that up in a huge way. Local governments would no doubt screw things up, but hopefully in a lesser way.

And by the way, outside of San Francisco, most homeless are not homeless because there are not enough dwellings to go around. Most homeless are certifiably insane and should be in some of kind of asylum or treatment center. So unless you build low-rent housing AND waive things like paying rent or mortgages on time, keeping the place neat and clean, etc... you won't be helping the homeless at all.

EI

The principle of least government does not mean a choice between no government and all government. I think that EI has a point, but the problem is that many local governments are not suited for long-range planning. We don't do a bad job where I live, what with planning boards and all, but there is no ONE jurisdiction which can control the area. We have a city inside a town, with six surrounding towns adjoining the central town, all inside one county. That's a lot of political entities that have to agree with each other in order to plan the rural/suburban/urban zoning which ultimately affects development. But we have a very involved citizenry which makes its collective voice(s) heard, so all in all, we do okay. Are there disgruntled people who don't like the 100 new units (apartments, townhouses, and single-family dwellings)going in a rural area?Sure there are.

But development is occurring in a planned way, and not helter-skelter, like in Nassau County (Long Island) where new housing isn't being built but everyone is illegally renting out part of their homes to other families (or renting out their houses to multiple families).

I'm an SF resident too. Building more housing here is retarded. It's a seven mile by seven mile peninsula, people. It's full. There's no more room. I don't know anything about Manhattan, but higher density housing here just doesn't make any sense. It's hellish enough here already. The traffic is unbearable, the policing is totally inaequate, it's filthy - and those people in cardboard boxes under the overpass? They're junkies and unmedicated schizophrenics, ok? Their problems are not going to be solved by new housing.

What I don't get is why we've given up on building new cities. Why does the argument have to be between totally wrecking livable urban neighborhoods, and sprawl? People want neighborhood life and they want interesting work and they don't want to commute. Build Googlopolis.

Comments are Closed.