The GMZ
June 16, 2016 9:52 AM Subscribe
"The federal government should establish neighborhood anti-gentrification zones where vulnerable tenants could purchase their apartment buildings away from predatory landlords, according to a policy report revealed today by Democratic State Senator Adriano Espaillat."
What's the word for when a state senator proposes a federal policy? Grandstanding?
posted by fitnr at 10:05 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by fitnr at 10:05 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Alternatively build more housing and allow more density. The housing shortage isn't going to be solved by just helping a few existing tenants.
posted by humanfont at 10:06 AM on June 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 10:06 AM on June 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
I'm pretty sure we're doing that what with the massive boom in condo towers that will have thier facades fall off in five years and the building of the largest single real estate development in US history (Hudson Yards, brand spanning new high density neighborhood right in Manhattan) so maybe the problem isn't that simple.
posted by The Whelk at 10:12 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 10:12 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
"More housing" is a long-term regional goal that doesn't do much, alone, to create economically integrated neighborhoods.
I RTFA, and now I see that this is part of Espaillat's House campaign, so that makes more sense. Still, he's essentially talking about HFDCs, so when not just propose new funding and expansion for the existing state & local program?
posted by fitnr at 10:13 AM on June 16, 2016
I RTFA, and now I see that this is part of Espaillat's House campaign, so that makes more sense. Still, he's essentially talking about HFDCs, so when not just propose new funding and expansion for the existing state & local program?
posted by fitnr at 10:13 AM on June 16, 2016
It's also illegal in many cities and neighborhoods, and rarely does the popular will exist to change the existing laws to increase density. The proposed solution, whatever its faults may be, would give people some chance at relief while we all wait for the perfect solution.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:15 AM on June 16, 2016
posted by tonycpsu at 10:15 AM on June 16, 2016
> Alternatively build more housing and allow more density. The housing shortage isn't going to be solved by just helping a few existing tenants.
posted by humanfont at 10:06 AM on June 16 [1 favorite +] [!]
To whom are you addressing this advice? Are you addressing this advice to market-rate developers? Because the sweet spot for market-rate development given current wealth distributions isn't "affordable housing for everyone," it's "miserable housing for most, decent-ish but very expensive housing for some, and stratospherically expensive but quite nice housing for a few."
Alternately, are you addressing this advice to municipal governments? Like, are you saying "well if it weren't for constraints on market development, the market would develop adequate housing for everyone?" Because I refer you to point 1 in that case.
I agree with you that we need to build our way out of the misery we're in. But allowing for denser market-driven development doesn't work, because the market is disinclined to provide adequate housing for all — it's simply less profitable than other, more miserable development patterns.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:16 AM on June 16, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 10:06 AM on June 16 [1 favorite +] [!]
To whom are you addressing this advice? Are you addressing this advice to market-rate developers? Because the sweet spot for market-rate development given current wealth distributions isn't "affordable housing for everyone," it's "miserable housing for most, decent-ish but very expensive housing for some, and stratospherically expensive but quite nice housing for a few."
Alternately, are you addressing this advice to municipal governments? Like, are you saying "well if it weren't for constraints on market development, the market would develop adequate housing for everyone?" Because I refer you to point 1 in that case.
I agree with you that we need to build our way out of the misery we're in. But allowing for denser market-driven development doesn't work, because the market is disinclined to provide adequate housing for all — it's simply less profitable than other, more miserable development patterns.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:16 AM on June 16, 2016 [24 favorites]
My first thought was surely there's better ways of dealing with the problem but Considering how nakedly venal and corrupt landlords are I figure anything short of breaking their knees won't St them from legally or illegally getting around anything in thier way to higher rents.
Have them compete with the near-unlimited resources of the government. Half the people in Hong Kong live in public housing. Want to help the poor? Use the resources of the government to give them a place to live and let them build equity and get onto the ladder instead of pissing away their paychecks each month paying a rentier's mortgage payment.
posted by Talez at 10:36 AM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
Have them compete with the near-unlimited resources of the government. Half the people in Hong Kong live in public housing. Want to help the poor? Use the resources of the government to give them a place to live and let them build equity and get onto the ladder instead of pissing away their paychecks each month paying a rentier's mortgage payment.
posted by Talez at 10:36 AM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
Another day, another Rube Goldberg machine to work around the fact that housing supply isn't meeting housing demand.
posted by mikewebkist at 10:41 AM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by mikewebkist at 10:41 AM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Not every case of gentrification is wrapped up in density issues. My city has plenty of housing, given that it's current population is about half of its high water mark in the 50s, but that doesn't keep developers and landlords from locating a new neighborhood with tons of occupied rentals, evicting current residents so they can renovate apartments and either sell them as condos or rent them for three times as much. The evicted tenants probably won't be homeless--there isn't a housing shortage in the greater metro area--but they will have to move to more dangerous areas, further from their jobs and social networks, with fewer transit options and amenities. If they were homeowners, they could either stay put or cash out on their newly hot neighborhood, their choice. As it is, they're just inconvenient warm bodies occupying a space that could be occupied by a fatter wallet.
posted by soren_lorensen at 10:49 AM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by soren_lorensen at 10:49 AM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
another Rube Goldberg machine to work around the fact that housing supply isn't meeting housing demand. the free market is a terrible solution to basic needs.
posted by zippy at 10:55 AM on June 16, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by zippy at 10:55 AM on June 16, 2016 [20 favorites]
Apologies for the snark in the above. My landlord is in the process of evicting me, and his interest is in maximizing profit, not ensuring that people of middle class means can afford to live under a roof.
posted by zippy at 10:56 AM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by zippy at 10:56 AM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
I mean, you can't even call it a "free" market when it comes to basic needs, which is why markets don't work. Don't work for healthcare, don't work for housing, don't work for retirement benefits.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:57 AM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 10:57 AM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Have we just given up on rent control? Most of Europe has laws for rent stabilization, which I assume is just another example of something any reasonable person would do but American doesn't.
posted by maxsparber at 11:00 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 11:00 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
@zippy: Yes, landlords suck. And the best way to punish them is to make them compete against newer, better options.
Sure...punishing crappy landlords sounds cathartic, but it doesn't actually make room for more people -- it just keeps the prices going up.
posted by mikewebkist at 11:07 AM on June 16, 2016
Sure...punishing crappy landlords sounds cathartic, but it doesn't actually make room for more people -- it just keeps the prices going up.
posted by mikewebkist at 11:07 AM on June 16, 2016
@maxsparber: how does rent control make room for more people?
posted by mikewebkist at 11:07 AM on June 16, 2016
posted by mikewebkist at 11:07 AM on June 16, 2016
Rent control isn't a method to create more room; it's to stave off gentrification by not allowing landlords to boot tenants unable to keep up with gentrification-level rent increases.
posted by griphus at 11:11 AM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by griphus at 11:11 AM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't know. This sounds kind of like putting poor people in their own kind of reservation. And that didn't turn out so well the last time we tried it.
posted by 80 Cats in a Dog Suit at 11:15 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by 80 Cats in a Dog Suit at 11:15 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
This sounds kind of like putting poor people in their own kind of reservation.
Except for the part where they're allowed to travel freely, and the part where they can sell their property if they feel that's in their interest, and the part where nothing else about it is anything like being on a reservation.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:20 AM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
Except for the part where they're allowed to travel freely, and the part where they can sell their property if they feel that's in their interest, and the part where nothing else about it is anything like being on a reservation.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:20 AM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
@scrittore: yes -- and their second best option (the walkup in a gentrifying neighborhood) has to drop its price because the 20 story condo took care of the rich people wanting a second home in the city. Look at any city: the mansions of 1910 were sold off in 1950 and turned into apartments in 1970. Building new houses for rich people leaves the old houses for poor people. Not building new houses for rich people makes poor people compete with them for the old stuff.
posted by mikewebkist at 11:24 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mikewebkist at 11:24 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Building new houses for rich people leaves the old houses for poor people.
I keep hearing this from people and then I keep seeing In Reality tons of people paying absurd sums of rent to live in shitty old houses because the baseline has been moved up.
posted by griphus at 11:26 AM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
I keep hearing this from people and then I keep seeing In Reality tons of people paying absurd sums of rent to live in shitty old houses because the baseline has been moved up.
posted by griphus at 11:26 AM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
Complaining that new development only serves higher-income people is like complaining that car manufacturers keep only building new cars, when lots of people want affordable used cars. Today's new shiny developments are the next generation's affordable mid-range housing. Affordable housing is like a forest. You don't build it, you grow it.
We know what happens when you try to address housing affordability by rent control measures without also building more units: San Francisco. By blocking denser construction, we're trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
We know what happens when you try to address housing affordability by rent control measures without also building more units: San Francisco. By blocking denser construction, we're trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
zippy: Yes, landlords suck. And the best way to punish them is to make them compete against newer, better options.
I don't think landlords suck, so much that we have public policy that incentivizes bad behavior. For example, policy that punts on existing problems as one where if only we let the real estate developers have free rein, then the landlords who have free rein wouldn't be such a problem.
Instead of, or in addition to, increasing supply, we can also look at ways to properly regulate the market. We can make policy decisions that lead to outcomes we want, rather than say well, this situation is bad, let's let the market and profit-driven interests continue to control it.
posted by zippy at 11:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think landlords suck, so much that we have public policy that incentivizes bad behavior. For example, policy that punts on existing problems as one where if only we let the real estate developers have free rein, then the landlords who have free rein wouldn't be such a problem.
Instead of, or in addition to, increasing supply, we can also look at ways to properly regulate the market. We can make policy decisions that lead to outcomes we want, rather than say well, this situation is bad, let's let the market and profit-driven interests continue to control it.
posted by zippy at 11:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
and their second best option (the walkup in a gentrifying neighborhood) has to drop its price because the 20 story condo took care of the rich people wanting a second home in the city.
Is there evidence that this actually happens? I have been a rentedr in working poor neighborhoods my entire life, and every single time a luxury condo has been built in my neighborhood, the landlords cranked up the rents assuming, I guess, condo? GENTRIFICATION IS ON!
It's happening right now. The awful old dumps in my neighborhood are getting bought up by conglomerations, who are cranking up the rent and evicting the more marginal tenants while, at the moment, not offering any new value, like repairing the buildings.
posted by maxsparber at 11:28 AM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
Is there evidence that this actually happens? I have been a rentedr in working poor neighborhoods my entire life, and every single time a luxury condo has been built in my neighborhood, the landlords cranked up the rents assuming, I guess, condo? GENTRIFICATION IS ON!
It's happening right now. The awful old dumps in my neighborhood are getting bought up by conglomerations, who are cranking up the rent and evicting the more marginal tenants while, at the moment, not offering any new value, like repairing the buildings.
posted by maxsparber at 11:28 AM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
UCLA Philanthropists Fund Purchase that Evicts Mission District Tenants
A family of wealthy philanthropists is one of a handful of investors backing the purchase of a Mission District building where some 14 rent-controlled tenants have received eviction notices.
Howard and Irene Levine — the husband and wife investors — are also the named donor for the Howard and Irene Levine Program for Housing and Social Responsibility at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The program — which trains graduate students in real estate — is aimed at addressing “timely and critical issues related to urban housing markets” including the “housing needs and outcomes of low-income and workforce households,” according to its website.
yeah, rich people are more than happy to pay a boatload of money for old houses
posted by burgerrr at 11:29 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
A family of wealthy philanthropists is one of a handful of investors backing the purchase of a Mission District building where some 14 rent-controlled tenants have received eviction notices.
Howard and Irene Levine — the husband and wife investors — are also the named donor for the Howard and Irene Levine Program for Housing and Social Responsibility at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The program — which trains graduate students in real estate — is aimed at addressing “timely and critical issues related to urban housing markets” including the “housing needs and outcomes of low-income and workforce households,” according to its website.
yeah, rich people are more than happy to pay a boatload of money for old houses
posted by burgerrr at 11:29 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's happening right now.
I just thought of something that might discourage that behavior, though.
Rent control.
posted by maxsparber at 11:29 AM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
I just thought of something that might discourage that behavior, though.
Rent control.
posted by maxsparber at 11:29 AM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
The rent, like the sea levels, are never going down.
posted by The Whelk at 11:32 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 11:32 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
True. The best you can hope is to stabilize them so they don't endlessly rise, like an out-of-control muffin.
posted by maxsparber at 11:34 AM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 11:34 AM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
the mansions of 1910 were sold off in 1950 and turned into apartments in 1970.
Where I live, these apartments of 1970 are now being sold as, "Convert back to single-family and make it the home of your dreams!"
posted by soren_lorensen at 11:38 AM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
Where I live, these apartments of 1970 are now being sold as, "Convert back to single-family and make it the home of your dreams!"
posted by soren_lorensen at 11:38 AM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
It sounds like people are basically proposing San Francisco: Tight restrictions on new construction, along with rent control.
Can someone either please say with a straight face that San Francisco has a functioning housing market, or explain what that city is doing wrong?
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:43 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Can someone either please say with a straight face that San Francisco has a functioning housing market, or explain what that city is doing wrong?
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:43 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sell property by lottery, $X per square foot*. You want to live by the beach? Pick a number, we'll call you if it comes up.
I have fantastic visions of collectives of poor young people living next to old-money codgers in their waterfront mansions by the sea, and of BMW-driving yuppies living in a walk-up in the inner city because, hey, sometimes you can't even buy luck.
* Since we're all dreaming anyway.
posted by klanawa at 11:43 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have fantastic visions of collectives of poor young people living next to old-money codgers in their waterfront mansions by the sea, and of BMW-driving yuppies living in a walk-up in the inner city because, hey, sometimes you can't even buy luck.
* Since we're all dreaming anyway.
posted by klanawa at 11:43 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Rent control has a couple of very positive effects:
If we want to build our way toward adequate housing, the market is not the solution. The market, simply put, is not built for that.
>@scrittore: yes -- and their second best option (the walkup in a gentrifying neighborhood) has to drop its price because the 20 story condo took care of the rich people wanting a second home in the city. Look at any city: the mansions of 1910 were sold off in 1950 and turned into apartments in 1970. Building new houses for rich people leaves the old houses for poor people. Not building new houses for rich people makes poor people compete with them for the old stuff.
Oh for the love of. Readers of this site are intimately familiar with the Jane Jacobs era arguments about how palaces for the rich will tend to become apartment buildings for the poor over time. And Jacobs was a genius in ways that we have not yet even begun to acknowledge — for example, although we all know Death and Life forward and backwards, we're only now beginning to take up her arguments from her second book, The Economy of Cities.
However, although Jacobs was a genius, some of her ideas in Death and Life were an artifact of the era of cheap oil and mass suburbanization, and are not holding up now that we're at the tail end of the cheap oil era. Specifically, without competition from massive, unsustainable suburban developments, it makes more sense for the market to tightly restrict housing supply via the means outlined above, wherein lenders, rationally, only lend to maximally profitable developments, which means in practice developments in genuinely housing-starved markets. Developments that actually increase supply enough to meet demand are less profitable and therefore unattractive to lenders. In this situation — the situation we're living in now — older housing remains sufficiently attractive to remain in the hands of the rich indefinitely, rather than being passed down to normal people. You cannot divide the housing market into "older housing for normal people, new housing for the rich," because older housing remains attractive to the rich. Should new development start to come close to soaking up sufficient demand to clear older housing for the rest of us, new development will slow as it becomes less profitable than development in more housing-starved markets.
If you want to see sufficient dense development in cities to soak up the demand produced by the rich enough to satisfy the needs of the rest of us, you cannot merely advocate for the end of restrictions on market development. Instead, you must begin to advocate for non-market measures. I prefer public housing — hell, I prefer genuine land reform, wherein the rights to property are simply transferred wholesale from the people who currently own the property to the people who live in it. But if you're more reasonable than me, the thing you should be advocating for is the establishment of municipal banks specifically tasked to lend money for projects that private sector lenders avoid.
But if you're stuck on "but but but the market must be unleashed," you're not acknowledging reality.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:45 AM on June 16, 2016 [26 favorites]
- It spares tenants the costs of relocating. These costs are straightforward: it costs money to move, it costs time to move, and it costs money and time to commute in from housing that is inevitably farther from workplaces than the place the tenant was priced out of.
- It allows for the possibility of citizenship. If it weren't for rent control, my partner and I would have been gentrified out of Oakland years ago. If that had happened, we would have lost all of our political connections along with our apartment. Re-establishing something like those connections — building new organizations to replace the ones lost — would take years if not decades, and would be not remotely worth the effort unless we had some sort of assurance that we wouldn't get kicked out of our new turf in Concord or whatever as rent increases spread farther and farther out into the hinterlands.
If we want to build our way toward adequate housing, the market is not the solution. The market, simply put, is not built for that.
>@scrittore: yes -- and their second best option (the walkup in a gentrifying neighborhood) has to drop its price because the 20 story condo took care of the rich people wanting a second home in the city. Look at any city: the mansions of 1910 were sold off in 1950 and turned into apartments in 1970. Building new houses for rich people leaves the old houses for poor people. Not building new houses for rich people makes poor people compete with them for the old stuff.
Oh for the love of. Readers of this site are intimately familiar with the Jane Jacobs era arguments about how palaces for the rich will tend to become apartment buildings for the poor over time. And Jacobs was a genius in ways that we have not yet even begun to acknowledge — for example, although we all know Death and Life forward and backwards, we're only now beginning to take up her arguments from her second book, The Economy of Cities.
However, although Jacobs was a genius, some of her ideas in Death and Life were an artifact of the era of cheap oil and mass suburbanization, and are not holding up now that we're at the tail end of the cheap oil era. Specifically, without competition from massive, unsustainable suburban developments, it makes more sense for the market to tightly restrict housing supply via the means outlined above, wherein lenders, rationally, only lend to maximally profitable developments, which means in practice developments in genuinely housing-starved markets. Developments that actually increase supply enough to meet demand are less profitable and therefore unattractive to lenders. In this situation — the situation we're living in now — older housing remains sufficiently attractive to remain in the hands of the rich indefinitely, rather than being passed down to normal people. You cannot divide the housing market into "older housing for normal people, new housing for the rich," because older housing remains attractive to the rich. Should new development start to come close to soaking up sufficient demand to clear older housing for the rest of us, new development will slow as it becomes less profitable than development in more housing-starved markets.
If you want to see sufficient dense development in cities to soak up the demand produced by the rich enough to satisfy the needs of the rest of us, you cannot merely advocate for the end of restrictions on market development. Instead, you must begin to advocate for non-market measures. I prefer public housing — hell, I prefer genuine land reform, wherein the rights to property are simply transferred wholesale from the people who currently own the property to the people who live in it. But if you're more reasonable than me, the thing you should be advocating for is the establishment of municipal banks specifically tasked to lend money for projects that private sector lenders avoid.
But if you're stuck on "but but but the market must be unleashed," you're not acknowledging reality.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:45 AM on June 16, 2016 [26 favorites]
> Can someone either please say with a straight face that San Francisco has a functioning housing market, or explain what that city is doing wrong?
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:43 AM on June 16 [1 favorite +] [!]
The Bay Area housing market is working spectacularly well for the people who own a piece of it. It is working the best for property owners in the little suburbs in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. Homeowners in these places — who've had the time to build political connections and who determine, in large part, which electeds in their towns get elected — understand that:
Discussions of the housing crisis tend to involve a lot of earnestly pretending that we're all interested in everyone having a decent place to live, followed by equally earnest attempts to identify what's keeping us from achieving this shared goal of mutual happiness and prosperity. But in reality, we don't have a shared goal; property owners and tenants are competitors, with very different desires and very different goals.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:43 AM on June 16 [1 favorite +] [!]
The Bay Area housing market is working spectacularly well for the people who own a piece of it. It is working the best for property owners in the little suburbs in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. Homeowners in these places — who've had the time to build political connections and who determine, in large part, which electeds in their towns get elected — understand that:
- Restricting housing supply, and
- Encouraging office development
Discussions of the housing crisis tend to involve a lot of earnestly pretending that we're all interested in everyone having a decent place to live, followed by equally earnest attempts to identify what's keeping us from achieving this shared goal of mutual happiness and prosperity. But in reality, we don't have a shared goal; property owners and tenants are competitors, with very different desires and very different goals.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
@You Can't Tip a Buick: ultimately we agree: the problem is too little supply. I think unleashing the market will fix the problem, you think it requires government intervention. FIne. Different strokes, and all. But your second post is the important one: we are where we are because powerful people LIKE THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE. The only way to fix it is to destroy that power.
posted by mikewebkist at 12:15 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mikewebkist at 12:15 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
@scittore: let me go on record saying the suburbs are a nightmarish hellscape that we will be paying for dearly for the next hundred years.
posted by mikewebkist at 12:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by mikewebkist at 12:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
There are also Ways To Do Rent Control that keep landlords, tenants, and the principles of diversity happy. I live in a posh town neighboring Paris; when you say its name people stand to attention and their voices get more respectful (yeah...). I'm paying anywhere from 40-60% less in rent than my neighbors in comparable, privatized apartments. The building I'm in is managed by a private agency that has a government contract, meaning it has to meet certain criteria in order to operate. In our building, a percentage of the apartments are set aside for low-income families, others are for middle-class people who qualify for a sort of on-the-edge housing assistance (that would include me). All are rent-controlled. In tandem with my city's housing/construction policies, our building is architecturally identical to its next-door twin, which is fully privatized: there are owners, landlords/renters etc. Interestingly, the upkeep on our building is noticeably better than on the private twin. But I digress.
The idea is that you get a healthy mix of people, avoiding both ghettoization and gentrification. It works fabulously. I love seeing kids from all walks of life playing together in our nearby park. Among other things our city has the lowest crime rate in the whole of Parisian suburbs. It's so low that the police go around reminding us to call them when we go on holiday so that they can drop by and check on our places, because otherwise they don't have much to do. I've only been here eight months and have already seen them twice and gotten their printout reminders a few times.
It can be done - it requires a lot of thought and proper organization, but yes, it does work. I'm really happy where I live and want to stay as long as feasible, whereas earlier I had thought for sure I would buy a place.
Speaking of eviction. Yikes. Tenant protections would be nice in the US. Over here, a long-term rental contract (we have long- and short-term ones) makes it extremely difficult to evict a tenant. Landlords have to not only prove they haven't been paid, but also prove that the tenant won't be able to pay, and it has to go on for several months, with written tenant-landlord discussions, mediators, the whole shebang, before a judge will even consider signing off on an eviction notice. Do note that landlords here can pay for rental income insurance once a contract is signed.
posted by fraula at 12:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
The idea is that you get a healthy mix of people, avoiding both ghettoization and gentrification. It works fabulously. I love seeing kids from all walks of life playing together in our nearby park. Among other things our city has the lowest crime rate in the whole of Parisian suburbs. It's so low that the police go around reminding us to call them when we go on holiday so that they can drop by and check on our places, because otherwise they don't have much to do. I've only been here eight months and have already seen them twice and gotten their printout reminders a few times.
It can be done - it requires a lot of thought and proper organization, but yes, it does work. I'm really happy where I live and want to stay as long as feasible, whereas earlier I had thought for sure I would buy a place.
Speaking of eviction. Yikes. Tenant protections would be nice in the US. Over here, a long-term rental contract (we have long- and short-term ones) makes it extremely difficult to evict a tenant. Landlords have to not only prove they haven't been paid, but also prove that the tenant won't be able to pay, and it has to go on for several months, with written tenant-landlord discussions, mediators, the whole shebang, before a judge will even consider signing off on an eviction notice. Do note that landlords here can pay for rental income insurance once a contract is signed.
posted by fraula at 12:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
mike: We both agree that there needs to be more and better housing, certainly; we are not Palo Alto homeowners and so aren't financially incentivized to use state and market power to tighten supply. Fair enough.
But, though I would love to focus on what we agree on, describing us as being in meaningful agreement requires doing a serious disservice to everyone involved in the conversation. Basically, our difference is that you think the market is leashed — that state power, in the form of municipal regulations, has constrained the market and prevented it from providing housing. I think the market is not leashed; that it is doing what it prefers, using state power when possible to engineer hyperprofitable situations.
In those few municipalities where renters have even a modicum of power — Oakland, Berkeley, and to a lesser extent San Francisco — we have been able to use governmental power to give us something like a toehold, even though we don't have enough money to buy property. We've won some necessary gains — for example, the (inadequate, unreliable) rent control that allows us some small slice of stability. We have not, however, been able to meaningfully resist the market's demand that housing on the whole be kept scarce and expensive.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:29 PM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
But, though I would love to focus on what we agree on, describing us as being in meaningful agreement requires doing a serious disservice to everyone involved in the conversation. Basically, our difference is that you think the market is leashed — that state power, in the form of municipal regulations, has constrained the market and prevented it from providing housing. I think the market is not leashed; that it is doing what it prefers, using state power when possible to engineer hyperprofitable situations.
In those few municipalities where renters have even a modicum of power — Oakland, Berkeley, and to a lesser extent San Francisco — we have been able to use governmental power to give us something like a toehold, even though we don't have enough money to buy property. We've won some necessary gains — for example, the (inadequate, unreliable) rent control that allows us some small slice of stability. We have not, however, been able to meaningfully resist the market's demand that housing on the whole be kept scarce and expensive.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:29 PM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
Suddenly the bus runs less often, sidewalks aren't repaired, and that "poor buy the rich's old houses" scenario you cooked up has them worse off.
And then, interesting enough, everything looks like it did in the 30s: the bougoisie living in urban enclaves and poor people trying to scrape a meal out of country dirt. Full circle.
posted by klanawa at 12:31 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
And then, interesting enough, everything looks like it did in the 30s: the bougoisie living in urban enclaves and poor people trying to scrape a meal out of country dirt. Full circle.
posted by klanawa at 12:31 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Where I live, these apartments of 1970 are now being sold as, "Convert back to single-family and make it the home of your dreams!"
That happened back in the early seventies where I live. All the big houses had like ten units in them from around WWI but got converted back to single-family forty years ago. The neighborhood had something like 2500 residents in 1950 but is down under 500 now.
posted by octothorpe at 12:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
That happened back in the early seventies where I live. All the big houses had like ten units in them from around WWI but got converted back to single-family forty years ago. The neighborhood had something like 2500 residents in 1950 but is down under 500 now.
posted by octothorpe at 12:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
> In our building, a percentage of the apartments are set aside for low-income families, others are for middle-class people who qualify for a sort of on-the-edge housing assistance (that would include me). All are rent-controlled. In tandem with my city's housing/construction policies, our building is architecturally identical to its next-door twin, which is fully privatized: there are owners, landlords/renters etc. Interestingly, the upkeep on our building is noticeably better than on the private twin. But I digress.
So in the United States developers (and their friends in the urbanist movement, who for all I know may be honest dupes rather than cynical self-dealers) are fanatically opposed to anything along these lines.
Specifically, market urbanists have targeted moderate affordable housing set-asides and "linkage fees" (a term referring to fees on new market-rate development used to subsidize sub-market housing development) as constraints on development that do more harm than good. The argument goes something like this: "If we have affordable housing set-asides and linkage fees, this will marginally drive up the cost of development, making development marginally less profitable. This will drive away lenders who prefer less-constrained markets, and ultimately result in less housing."
The thing these people avoid talking about is that increased development itself has the same effect — as the market approaches saturation development becomes less profitable, driving away lenders.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:35 PM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
So in the United States developers (and their friends in the urbanist movement, who for all I know may be honest dupes rather than cynical self-dealers) are fanatically opposed to anything along these lines.
Specifically, market urbanists have targeted moderate affordable housing set-asides and "linkage fees" (a term referring to fees on new market-rate development used to subsidize sub-market housing development) as constraints on development that do more harm than good. The argument goes something like this: "If we have affordable housing set-asides and linkage fees, this will marginally drive up the cost of development, making development marginally less profitable. This will drive away lenders who prefer less-constrained markets, and ultimately result in less housing."
The thing these people avoid talking about is that increased development itself has the same effect — as the market approaches saturation development becomes less profitable, driving away lenders.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:35 PM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
The Bay Area housing market is working spectacularly well for the people who own a piece of it. It is working the best for property owners in the little suburbs in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties.
Yep. There's no disagreement with that. We have a condo in Santa Clara proper. 2 bedroom, 1000sqft and we got $2850/mo for it. We have a $115K mortgage left on it and the condo pays for itself and part of our mortgage out here in Massachusetts.
We don't infiltrate politics to sabotage housing though. And we're actually renting below market so that we get decent tenants.
posted by Talez at 12:55 PM on June 16, 2016
Yep. There's no disagreement with that. We have a condo in Santa Clara proper. 2 bedroom, 1000sqft and we got $2850/mo for it. We have a $115K mortgage left on it and the condo pays for itself and part of our mortgage out here in Massachusetts.
We don't infiltrate politics to sabotage housing though. And we're actually renting below market so that we get decent tenants.
posted by Talez at 12:55 PM on June 16, 2016
That happened back in the early seventies where I live. All the big houses had like ten units in them from around WWI but got converted back to single-family forty years ago. The neighborhood had something like 2500 residents in 1950 but is down under 500 now.
You're North Side, right? Highland Park and East Liberty right now is like ground zero for "convert to single family! live the dream" typed real estate listings.
posted by soren_lorensen at 1:13 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
You're North Side, right? Highland Park and East Liberty right now is like ground zero for "convert to single family! live the dream" typed real estate listings.
posted by soren_lorensen at 1:13 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, Northside just up behind Heinz Field. The amusing thing is the older residents, the ones who renovated those old houses into single units all those years ago, now want to fight any multi-unit development projects because "they would change the nature of the neighborhood!"
posted by octothorpe at 1:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 1:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
I like this idea in a lot of ways. The central problem with gentrification is ownership. If your neighborhood is gentrified but you own your property you get to walk away with a pretty nice profit.
That said, this puts the government (IE all of us) on the hook for the risk. If a real estate bubble bursts are these low income tenants going to be able to weather the storm or will there need to be a massive bailout? And if the bubble doesn't burst would these same people simply move out to somewhere cheaper and live off the rent letting the area gentrify anyway?
I have a worry that this sort of thing might have far more unintended consequences than are desirable, but on the other hand, it makes a ton of sense in fixing income inequality that maybe it's worth it.
posted by sp160n at 1:30 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
That said, this puts the government (IE all of us) on the hook for the risk. If a real estate bubble bursts are these low income tenants going to be able to weather the storm or will there need to be a massive bailout? And if the bubble doesn't burst would these same people simply move out to somewhere cheaper and live off the rent letting the area gentrify anyway?
I have a worry that this sort of thing might have far more unintended consequences than are desirable, but on the other hand, it makes a ton of sense in fixing income inequality that maybe it's worth it.
posted by sp160n at 1:30 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
At some point, we need to also revisit the very-American notion that we should use our houses as our bank accounts.
The financial incentives tied up with homeownership seem to produce a highly-myopic view on housing, which results in a massive undersupply, and inability to retool/upzone existing neighborhoods to better meet demand.
There are almost certainly lessons to be learned from the Urban Renewal disasters of the 1960s, but I'm not sure that the other extreme is looking much better. It's created a situation that benefits a small few at the detriment to all others.
Current power structures make it very easy for a community to keep new residents out.
posted by schmod at 1:30 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
The financial incentives tied up with homeownership seem to produce a highly-myopic view on housing, which results in a massive undersupply, and inability to retool/upzone existing neighborhoods to better meet demand.
There are almost certainly lessons to be learned from the Urban Renewal disasters of the 1960s, but I'm not sure that the other extreme is looking much better. It's created a situation that benefits a small few at the detriment to all others.
Current power structures make it very easy for a community to keep new residents out.
posted by schmod at 1:30 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean, it's not a matter of "infiltrating politics" or "sabotaging housing" or whatever. The majority of the electorate of those towns are homeowners, due to how renters tend not to vote as much as homeowners do — for good reason, since we know how quickly we could lose our place in town.
And so as a result municipal governments are all about tending to the needs of homeowners. No conspiracy/sabotage needed.
The debate normally gets cast in terms of "single-family character of the neighborhood," in terms of school overcrowding, or in terms of parking disputes, but the effects are the same; a tight restriction in new residential housing that sharply drives up the value of residential real estate.
fwiw, my preferred policy proposals go something like this:
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
And so as a result municipal governments are all about tending to the needs of homeowners. No conspiracy/sabotage needed.
The debate normally gets cast in terms of "single-family character of the neighborhood," in terms of school overcrowding, or in terms of parking disputes, but the effects are the same; a tight restriction in new residential housing that sharply drives up the value of residential real estate.
fwiw, my preferred policy proposals go something like this:
- Move control over zoning from small municipalities which tend to cater to the needs of local property owners over all else to regional authorities where renters might have a fighting chance. I don't think this will do much good, but it at least would mitigate the damage caused by Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton homeowners voting according to their narrow self-interests.
- Create rent control for all extant buildings, reducing the financial/social costs that relocation imposes on tenants.
- Construct as much public housing as possible, to soak up demand and thereby drive down property values and rent.
- Institute publicly owned banks tasked with lending to sub-market developments, with an eye toward extracting exactly enough profit to continually expand the scale of loans possible.
- In the short term: emergency price controls straightforwardly limiting the amount landlords can charge for rent — not rent control, but price control.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
I liked how a GGW commentator told me that I'm effectively "homeless" because I rent.
Just to give some perspective on how landlords see us as parasites.
But, please. Keep complaining about the $100,000+ in rent that I've paid out over the past 6 years. Yeah. I know it must be tough that I paid off your mortgage, while you literally did nothing. It also must suck that the value of your land more than tripled over that same period.
The system is rigged to keep renters paying landowners forever. This isn't even a conversation that we're having nationally. We're on our own.
posted by schmod at 1:39 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
Just to give some perspective on how landlords see us as parasites.
But, please. Keep complaining about the $100,000+ in rent that I've paid out over the past 6 years. Yeah. I know it must be tough that I paid off your mortgage, while you literally did nothing. It also must suck that the value of your land more than tripled over that same period.
The system is rigged to keep renters paying landowners forever. This isn't even a conversation that we're having nationally. We're on our own.
posted by schmod at 1:39 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
paying landowners forever
I prefer the term "rent-seekers" over landowners, because it emphasizes the desire to reap gains while contributing nothing.
From the link: 'One of the most common ways companies in the 21st century engage in rent-seeking is by using their capital to contribute to politicians who influence the laws and regulations that govern and industry and how government subsidies are distributed within.'
In California we have Proposition 13, that caps the rent-seeker's property taxes at absurdly below-market levels. At the same time, rent-seeker associations have successfully lobbied for rent and vacancy decontrol.
Free market on the profit side, highly regulated on the cost side.
It's as if they wish for no regulations on making money, while benefiting from regulations that cap their expenses.
posted by zippy at 1:45 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
I prefer the term "rent-seekers" over landowners, because it emphasizes the desire to reap gains while contributing nothing.
From the link: 'One of the most common ways companies in the 21st century engage in rent-seeking is by using their capital to contribute to politicians who influence the laws and regulations that govern and industry and how government subsidies are distributed within.'
In California we have Proposition 13, that caps the rent-seeker's property taxes at absurdly below-market levels. At the same time, rent-seeker associations have successfully lobbied for rent and vacancy decontrol.
Free market on the profit side, highly regulated on the cost side.
It's as if they wish for no regulations on making money, while benefiting from regulations that cap their expenses.
posted by zippy at 1:45 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Thing is, the market is not a one way street. It fluctuates. Back in the '70s, you couldn't give away Manhattan apartments. Mom and Pop landlords were abandoning buildings because they cost more to run than they earned. The Bronx was burning (a fresh memory even in 1990). Indeed, conventional wisdom was that a brash young D. Trump was a fool to even consider building there at the time. He caught a wave, of course, extended since 2000 by an ocean of Federal Reserve funny money looking for a place to settle, which leads us to today.
My own sense (very subjective and anecdotal) is that the market's peaked. Brooklyn hipsters with young children are moving to the 'burbs, rich foreigners hoping to park money in high end real estate* are taking a deep breath (and even dropping their price points), job growth such as it is, is in the gig economy. Whether we relive the seventies or not, I can't say. But much as I love New York, I would not be buying real estate there, not at this time. (London either, for that matter.)
*The foreigner giveth and the foreigner loseth his shirt. Granted, that was commercial, but the concept hold. 432 Park, if not the high water mark is, I think, close to it. Of course, I could be wrong and no doubt a contrary case could be made.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:18 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
My own sense (very subjective and anecdotal) is that the market's peaked. Brooklyn hipsters with young children are moving to the 'burbs, rich foreigners hoping to park money in high end real estate* are taking a deep breath (and even dropping their price points), job growth such as it is, is in the gig economy. Whether we relive the seventies or not, I can't say. But much as I love New York, I would not be buying real estate there, not at this time. (London either, for that matter.)
*The foreigner giveth and the foreigner loseth his shirt. Granted, that was commercial, but the concept hold. 432 Park, if not the high water mark is, I think, close to it. Of course, I could be wrong and no doubt a contrary case could be made.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:18 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
So i might be missing something here, but what i don't understand is:
So you fix rents at X. The building without fixed rents is worth A, the building with them is worth B which is less. This is fine.... But what happens when it's taxed at either value and the taxes/upkeep exceed the income from the rent that's fixed at some low rate?
This is the basic issue with super cheap fixed rent apartments in NYC and elsewhere. Why would the landlord do any maintenance ever? How would they even afford to?
I mean, i'm all for going "fuck landlords", and pro rent control. I just don't really see how this addresses this at all.
Forcing developers to pay X percentage of the taxed value of their property into public housing(or being taxed a healthy percentage yearly) seems like a much more sustainable solution. Privatizing this seems like a goddamn nightmare. As does subsidizing it(where the shittiest possible job at the most pork barreled rate would be done). I'm even for the city buying up existing old buildings. Maybe a non profit?
What zippy is describing are exactly a big part of my issues with this idea.
When i've seen similar ideas come up before it's the same cries of "that'll discourage/slow down development!". Well, you know what, fuck em'. None of that development is going to help for 20+ years anyways unless property values tank harder than we can imagine.
posted by emptythought at 4:42 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
So you fix rents at X. The building without fixed rents is worth A, the building with them is worth B which is less. This is fine.... But what happens when it's taxed at either value and the taxes/upkeep exceed the income from the rent that's fixed at some low rate?
This is the basic issue with super cheap fixed rent apartments in NYC and elsewhere. Why would the landlord do any maintenance ever? How would they even afford to?
I mean, i'm all for going "fuck landlords", and pro rent control. I just don't really see how this addresses this at all.
Forcing developers to pay X percentage of the taxed value of their property into public housing(or being taxed a healthy percentage yearly) seems like a much more sustainable solution. Privatizing this seems like a goddamn nightmare. As does subsidizing it(where the shittiest possible job at the most pork barreled rate would be done). I'm even for the city buying up existing old buildings. Maybe a non profit?
What zippy is describing are exactly a big part of my issues with this idea.
When i've seen similar ideas come up before it's the same cries of "that'll discourage/slow down development!". Well, you know what, fuck em'. None of that development is going to help for 20+ years anyways unless property values tank harder than we can imagine.
posted by emptythought at 4:42 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, the problem with "build new stuff and the not-rich can live in the old stuff" is landlords determine market rate based on comps. And even when those comps aren't actually very comparable, if they see the new units going for $3k they'll at least try to get $2500. And the thing is, they'll get it. There seems to be an endless supply of rich enough people that want to live in desirable or transitioning-to-desirable neighborhoods.
I knew that I was like wave 0.5 of gentrification when I rented my current apartment, which is newish construction that was supposed to be condos but never sold after the crash in 2008. I figured hey, at least I'm not pushing some long term resident out of their apartment in a greystone two-flat, right? This land used to be industrial; it literally is new housing supply people talk about. Now the tables have turned and my building changed hands and my rent is going up ~23% (maybe more! that's just what they listed at this year) next year when my lease ends.
I honestly thought there was no way they'd get what they were asking when the new owner took over and existing tenants left due to the rent increase. These units are big and look nice if you don't look too hard, but the construction quality is terrible and everything is falling apart. It did take like 4 months but the 2 empty units in my building are full as of this weekend. Our new downstairs neighbors are 3 young single dudes we call the Neighbros who listen to loud bass-heavy music from the minute they get home Friday all through the weekend and have all their friends over to play beer pong to pre-game before going out. Gone are the couples and families that used to live here. The only reason we're still here is we were lucky enough to lock in a 2-year lease with the previous owner.
This is in a neighborhood with gang activity and shootings, and I've watched people shoot up drugs in their cars on my street, and I find syringes on the sidewalk in the park and have to make sure my dog doesn't step in piles of broken glass. But, I guess people have figured out the park is a major asset and some cute stores and restaurants are opening nearby and it's only a 35 minute bus ride to downtown. And the neighborhood just to the east got dubbed "hottest neighborhood in America" by redfin this year.
I know I'm complaining but I also know I'm so lucky; I make a good living and I'll be able to afford something even if my commute will double or I won't be one block from a giant city park anymore. I hate that whatever I find will probably be part of this unending cycle of find a place, get priced out, repeat; with folks who make less than me even worse off and to them I'm the one pricing them out.
Tl;dr: Gentrifiers fall victim to gentrification, film at 11.
posted by misskaz at 4:49 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
I knew that I was like wave 0.5 of gentrification when I rented my current apartment, which is newish construction that was supposed to be condos but never sold after the crash in 2008. I figured hey, at least I'm not pushing some long term resident out of their apartment in a greystone two-flat, right? This land used to be industrial; it literally is new housing supply people talk about. Now the tables have turned and my building changed hands and my rent is going up ~23% (maybe more! that's just what they listed at this year) next year when my lease ends.
I honestly thought there was no way they'd get what they were asking when the new owner took over and existing tenants left due to the rent increase. These units are big and look nice if you don't look too hard, but the construction quality is terrible and everything is falling apart. It did take like 4 months but the 2 empty units in my building are full as of this weekend. Our new downstairs neighbors are 3 young single dudes we call the Neighbros who listen to loud bass-heavy music from the minute they get home Friday all through the weekend and have all their friends over to play beer pong to pre-game before going out. Gone are the couples and families that used to live here. The only reason we're still here is we were lucky enough to lock in a 2-year lease with the previous owner.
This is in a neighborhood with gang activity and shootings, and I've watched people shoot up drugs in their cars on my street, and I find syringes on the sidewalk in the park and have to make sure my dog doesn't step in piles of broken glass. But, I guess people have figured out the park is a major asset and some cute stores and restaurants are opening nearby and it's only a 35 minute bus ride to downtown. And the neighborhood just to the east got dubbed "hottest neighborhood in America" by redfin this year.
I know I'm complaining but I also know I'm so lucky; I make a good living and I'll be able to afford something even if my commute will double or I won't be one block from a giant city park anymore. I hate that whatever I find will probably be part of this unending cycle of find a place, get priced out, repeat; with folks who make less than me even worse off and to them I'm the one pricing them out.
Tl;dr: Gentrifiers fall victim to gentrification, film at 11.
posted by misskaz at 4:49 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
>Thing is, the market is not a one way street. It fluctuates. Back in the '70s, you couldn't give away Manhattan apartments. Mom and Pop landlords were abandoning buildings because they cost more to run than they earned. The Bronx was burning (a fresh memory even in 1990). Indeed, conventional wisdom was that a brash young D. Trump was a fool to even consider building there at the time. He caught a wave, of course, extended since 2000 by an ocean of Federal Reserve funny money looking for a place to settle, which leads us to today.
> My own sense (very subjective and anecdotal) is that the market's peaked.
As much as I'd like to believe that this is a cyclical thing, and that big money will some day swing back out to the suburbs leaving the urban core cheap for humans again or whatever, I really think that what's going on right now is something different than cycles.
Basically, what you've identified as a cycle with peaks and valleys, I think is instead the result of a couple of major one-off events. One of these one-off events was the availability of cheap oil, allowing for cheap construction on cheap land out in what was the middle of nowhere back before we had cars full of cheap gas to get us out there and back. The age of cheap energy is never going to return.
The other of the one-off events was the widespread availability of relatively plentiful money for ordinary people, which, likewise, is never going to return. Whereas in the mid-20th century the moderate social welfare measures enacted by liberals in order to make communism seem less appealing to the lower classes kept some amount of money circulating back down to ordinary humans, now with the dismantlement of the social welfare state there is nothing stopping the very richest from hoovering up all the money — all the money — through the miracle of compound interest.
So I suspect what we're swinging back to — what we're already well on our way to, though we're not talking about it as much as we should — isn't what we saw in the 1970s, but instead something like the urban housing setup we had in the early 20th century — tremendously overcrowded tenements for most, overpriced housing for some, and stratospherically expensive housing for those few blessed souls with real money.
The prosperity of the mid-20th century was a glitch; that glitch has been fixed.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:59 PM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
> My own sense (very subjective and anecdotal) is that the market's peaked.
As much as I'd like to believe that this is a cyclical thing, and that big money will some day swing back out to the suburbs leaving the urban core cheap for humans again or whatever, I really think that what's going on right now is something different than cycles.
Basically, what you've identified as a cycle with peaks and valleys, I think is instead the result of a couple of major one-off events. One of these one-off events was the availability of cheap oil, allowing for cheap construction on cheap land out in what was the middle of nowhere back before we had cars full of cheap gas to get us out there and back. The age of cheap energy is never going to return.
The other of the one-off events was the widespread availability of relatively plentiful money for ordinary people, which, likewise, is never going to return. Whereas in the mid-20th century the moderate social welfare measures enacted by liberals in order to make communism seem less appealing to the lower classes kept some amount of money circulating back down to ordinary humans, now with the dismantlement of the social welfare state there is nothing stopping the very richest from hoovering up all the money — all the money — through the miracle of compound interest.
So I suspect what we're swinging back to — what we're already well on our way to, though we're not talking about it as much as we should — isn't what we saw in the 1970s, but instead something like the urban housing setup we had in the early 20th century — tremendously overcrowded tenements for most, overpriced housing for some, and stratospherically expensive housing for those few blessed souls with real money.
The prosperity of the mid-20th century was a glitch; that glitch has been fixed.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:59 PM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives are nice options for people who have the means to buy but don't want to participate in the culture of profit and real estate inflation.
posted by danjo at 8:41 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by danjo at 8:41 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think unleashing the market will fix the problem
Boston and Cambridge ended rent control (against the will of the majority of the actual residents of Boston and Cambridge) back in 1995. Are you aware of what has happened to rents since?
Also, in the last ten years, there has been virtually no new housing built targeted at middle-income families just about anywhere in the five boroughs west of Brownsville. It's been a pitiful handful of units aimed at the poor and high-priced condos, condos, condos. Manhattan and Brooklyn rents are legendary for the way they have simply kept rising regardless, but Queens has seen its run-up, too. Why is it that you believe that, given the fundamental necessity of housing, landlords will not charge the absolute maximum they can possibly extract from the market, completely unmoored from any sense of objective value of the property? Are you under the impression that competition is bringing down prices for phone service, for airlines, for cable? No? Then why this innocent faith in the most naive principle in capitalist thinking, that capitalists are too stupid to see that they can extract far more from people through implicit price-fixing than they can competing?
posted by praemunire at 10:01 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Boston and Cambridge ended rent control (against the will of the majority of the actual residents of Boston and Cambridge) back in 1995. Are you aware of what has happened to rents since?
Also, in the last ten years, there has been virtually no new housing built targeted at middle-income families just about anywhere in the five boroughs west of Brownsville. It's been a pitiful handful of units aimed at the poor and high-priced condos, condos, condos. Manhattan and Brooklyn rents are legendary for the way they have simply kept rising regardless, but Queens has seen its run-up, too. Why is it that you believe that, given the fundamental necessity of housing, landlords will not charge the absolute maximum they can possibly extract from the market, completely unmoored from any sense of objective value of the property? Are you under the impression that competition is bringing down prices for phone service, for airlines, for cable? No? Then why this innocent faith in the most naive principle in capitalist thinking, that capitalists are too stupid to see that they can extract far more from people through implicit price-fixing than they can competing?
posted by praemunire at 10:01 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
> This is the basic issue with super cheap fixed rent apartments in NYC and elsewhere. Why would the landlord do any maintenance ever? How would they even afford to?
If you're under the impression that rent stabilized apartments in New York City are "super cheap" then you should disabuse yourself of that notion.
There are a tiny number of rent controlled apartments - which require continuous occupation by the same family since 1971 for apartments, or since 1953 for single or two-family homes. There are fewer every day, and they don't contribute significantly to any problem one way or the other.
Rent stabilized apartments are quite common - almost half the apartments in New York City - but they are only cheap by NYC standards - rent stabilized apartments can rent for up to $2500 a month. I know a lot of people in rent stabilized apartments but they're all paying in the $1500 range - lots of spare money there for maintenance.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:48 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you're under the impression that rent stabilized apartments in New York City are "super cheap" then you should disabuse yourself of that notion.
There are a tiny number of rent controlled apartments - which require continuous occupation by the same family since 1971 for apartments, or since 1953 for single or two-family homes. There are fewer every day, and they don't contribute significantly to any problem one way or the other.
Rent stabilized apartments are quite common - almost half the apartments in New York City - but they are only cheap by NYC standards - rent stabilized apartments can rent for up to $2500 a month. I know a lot of people in rent stabilized apartments but they're all paying in the $1500 range - lots of spare money there for maintenance.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:48 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
This sounds like a goofy idea, with loads of probably unintended consequences.
The thing that baffles me about these MF threads is that even if there were a right to housing, it's a significant leap to have a right to rental housing... wherever you choose to have housing... that will never change. This appears to me pure absurdity, and I have a hard time believing how its even desirable overall in the long run.
Boston and Cambridge ended rent control (against the will of the majority of the actual residents of Boston and Cambridge) back in 1995. Are you aware of what has happened to rents since?
Also, in the last ten years, there has been virtually no new housing built targeted at middle-income families just about anywhere in the five boroughs west of Brownsville. It's been a pitiful handful of units aimed at the poor and high-priced condos, condos, condos. Manhattan and Brooklyn rents are legendary for the way they have simply kept rising regardless, but Queens has seen its run-up, too. Why is it that you believe that, given the fundamental necessity of housing, landlords will not charge the absolute maximum they can possibly extract from the market, completely unmoored from any sense of objective value of the property? Are you under the impression that competition is bringing down prices for phone service, for airlines, for cable? No? Then why this innocent faith in the most naive principle in capitalist thinking, that capitalists are too stupid to see that they can extract far more from people through implicit price-fixing than they can competing?
Put this way, it sounds like the free market did fix the problem. What the free market does not fix is supply and demand.
FWIW, competition has seemed to bring down prices for phone, airline services on my end. Cable, I can't assess, since I've never used it. Cable is also a practical monopoly, so I'm not sure how it quite fits the idea of competition.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:50 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The thing that baffles me about these MF threads is that even if there were a right to housing, it's a significant leap to have a right to rental housing... wherever you choose to have housing... that will never change. This appears to me pure absurdity, and I have a hard time believing how its even desirable overall in the long run.
Boston and Cambridge ended rent control (against the will of the majority of the actual residents of Boston and Cambridge) back in 1995. Are you aware of what has happened to rents since?
Also, in the last ten years, there has been virtually no new housing built targeted at middle-income families just about anywhere in the five boroughs west of Brownsville. It's been a pitiful handful of units aimed at the poor and high-priced condos, condos, condos. Manhattan and Brooklyn rents are legendary for the way they have simply kept rising regardless, but Queens has seen its run-up, too. Why is it that you believe that, given the fundamental necessity of housing, landlords will not charge the absolute maximum they can possibly extract from the market, completely unmoored from any sense of objective value of the property? Are you under the impression that competition is bringing down prices for phone service, for airlines, for cable? No? Then why this innocent faith in the most naive principle in capitalist thinking, that capitalists are too stupid to see that they can extract far more from people through implicit price-fixing than they can competing?
Put this way, it sounds like the free market did fix the problem. What the free market does not fix is supply and demand.
FWIW, competition has seemed to bring down prices for phone, airline services on my end. Cable, I can't assess, since I've never used it. Cable is also a practical monopoly, so I'm not sure how it quite fits the idea of competition.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:50 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
> The thing that baffles me about these MF threads is that even if there were a right to housing, it's a significant leap to have a right to rental housing... wherever you choose to have housing... that will never change. This appears to me pure absurdity, and I have a hard time believing how its even desirable overall in the long run.
Maybe one way for you to cut through your confusion is through stepping back from the idea of "right to housing" as central to this conversation, since as far as I can tell that's not the frame that anyone else is using; like, no one here is saying "everyone has a right to housing; how can we realize that right?"
Instead, we're mostly casting about for concrete methods to readjust the distribution of housing in urban areas, simply because we would on the whole prefer to live in cities that supply housing on a more equitable basis, and because Metafilter is a place where people thoughtfully consider questions about what sort of world we would like to live in and how we might go about finding tools to make that world possible.
I am speaking about preferences, which may seem like too lighthearted a word to use in this context. But these preferences aren't arbitrary or aesthetic, despite the weird derail about the aesthetics of suburbia midway through the thread. Instead, they're practical and moral. Practical, because life is happier for everyone in places where most people can rest secure in the knowledge that they'll be able to live tomorrow in the place they're living today, and moreover secure in the knowledge that they can live there and still have free time for something other than work. Moral, because even if our lives weren't made better when our neighbors' lives are made better, we nevertheless are all mutually responsible for each other. Or something like that — I might be projecting my sense of the world onto others, there. Nevertheless, I suspect that other people than me think that, as an old revolutionary put it, "we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."
Anyway, the point is that rather than approaching it from a "rights" perspective, instead you might have an easier time understanding it as something (and I hesitate to use this language, because it's not quite accurate), but instead as something akin to an engineering problem. We have built a machine for making decisions about the allocation of housing. We call this machine the "free market," even though it's not in any particular way free and even though it's not exactly a market. We have discovered that this machine, as currently configured, tends to prefer an allocation of resources that is not particularly useful; an allocation where people can't live near where they work, where people can't get enough space to live in, and where people can't feel secure that they can remain where they are. And we've all discovered that the market, as currently configured, produces a widespread undersupply of housing — for the very good reason that producing a little bit of housing in a housing-starved market is significantly more profitable than producing enough housing to make for comfortable, happy cities.
This might all be gibberish to you — it may in fact be baffling, as you put it — if you hold that the results yielded by the market as currently configured are ideal, and that the ideal nature of market-as-currently-configured processes must and should be taken as an axiom. I consider this to be a theological claim, and not a particularly sound, reasonable, or useful theological claim.
We have in this thread been considering examples of methods of reconfiguring market rules to produce better outcomes than those produced by the rules as stand in most of America. And this discussion of empirical examples and empirical methods is not driven by any idea of "rights" whatsoever. We are sophisticated people who understand that the only way we'll have anything somewhat decent — not perfect, nothing's perfect in this truly godforsaken world, but maybe somewhat decent — is through learning how to take it, organizing to take it, and then taking it. One method of taking it — a method which, I agree, is probably ineffective in isolation — is to change the rules such that building tenants have the right of first refusal when building owners sell the building. Another way is to adjust rental contract law such that it is illegal to rent out a house under terms that allow the landlord to raise rents above a certain level. Another way is for municipalities to stand as "lenders of last resort," stepping in to provide funding for housing development above and beyond the levels of housing development that the market would prefer. Another is for government to actually build housing itself, directly stepping in to correct market misallocations.
None of these things have anything to do with rights.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:08 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Maybe one way for you to cut through your confusion is through stepping back from the idea of "right to housing" as central to this conversation, since as far as I can tell that's not the frame that anyone else is using; like, no one here is saying "everyone has a right to housing; how can we realize that right?"
Instead, we're mostly casting about for concrete methods to readjust the distribution of housing in urban areas, simply because we would on the whole prefer to live in cities that supply housing on a more equitable basis, and because Metafilter is a place where people thoughtfully consider questions about what sort of world we would like to live in and how we might go about finding tools to make that world possible.
I am speaking about preferences, which may seem like too lighthearted a word to use in this context. But these preferences aren't arbitrary or aesthetic, despite the weird derail about the aesthetics of suburbia midway through the thread. Instead, they're practical and moral. Practical, because life is happier for everyone in places where most people can rest secure in the knowledge that they'll be able to live tomorrow in the place they're living today, and moreover secure in the knowledge that they can live there and still have free time for something other than work. Moral, because even if our lives weren't made better when our neighbors' lives are made better, we nevertheless are all mutually responsible for each other. Or something like that — I might be projecting my sense of the world onto others, there. Nevertheless, I suspect that other people than me think that, as an old revolutionary put it, "we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."
Anyway, the point is that rather than approaching it from a "rights" perspective, instead you might have an easier time understanding it as something (and I hesitate to use this language, because it's not quite accurate), but instead as something akin to an engineering problem. We have built a machine for making decisions about the allocation of housing. We call this machine the "free market," even though it's not in any particular way free and even though it's not exactly a market. We have discovered that this machine, as currently configured, tends to prefer an allocation of resources that is not particularly useful; an allocation where people can't live near where they work, where people can't get enough space to live in, and where people can't feel secure that they can remain where they are. And we've all discovered that the market, as currently configured, produces a widespread undersupply of housing — for the very good reason that producing a little bit of housing in a housing-starved market is significantly more profitable than producing enough housing to make for comfortable, happy cities.
This might all be gibberish to you — it may in fact be baffling, as you put it — if you hold that the results yielded by the market as currently configured are ideal, and that the ideal nature of market-as-currently-configured processes must and should be taken as an axiom. I consider this to be a theological claim, and not a particularly sound, reasonable, or useful theological claim.
We have in this thread been considering examples of methods of reconfiguring market rules to produce better outcomes than those produced by the rules as stand in most of America. And this discussion of empirical examples and empirical methods is not driven by any idea of "rights" whatsoever. We are sophisticated people who understand that the only way we'll have anything somewhat decent — not perfect, nothing's perfect in this truly godforsaken world, but maybe somewhat decent — is through learning how to take it, organizing to take it, and then taking it. One method of taking it — a method which, I agree, is probably ineffective in isolation — is to change the rules such that building tenants have the right of first refusal when building owners sell the building. Another way is to adjust rental contract law such that it is illegal to rent out a house under terms that allow the landlord to raise rents above a certain level. Another way is for municipalities to stand as "lenders of last resort," stepping in to provide funding for housing development above and beyond the levels of housing development that the market would prefer. Another is for government to actually build housing itself, directly stepping in to correct market misallocations.
None of these things have anything to do with rights.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:08 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
« Older rest in power | The Uncanny Mind That Built Ethereum Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The Whelk at 10:04 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]