> Like other similar stores, her rent went up 5x and she shuttered.
Want to know the best way to protect against exceedingly high prices? Increase supply. If the market had enough supply to meet its own demand, then that situation wouldn’t be possible. The number one thing that holds back the supply of real estate is insane zoning and planning regulation.
The idea that permanently preserving nonsense like the “character” of neighbourhood, at the cost of affordable housing and business rent has to be one of the most anti-social mobility, anti-equality, openly classist ideas we have in our society. “But what if somebody builds an apartment tower next to my expensive Victorian house?”, good! Maybe there’ll be less people sleeping on the streets and in their cars because of it.
> The idea that permanently preserving nonsense like the “character” of neighbourhood, at the cost of affordable housing and business rent has to be one of the most anti-social mobility, anti-equality, openly classist ideas we have in our society. “But what if somebody builds an apartment tower next to my expensive Victorian house?”
I'm sure there's that too, but a lot of it is a result of an "unholy alliance" of democracy and economics. For most people their home is the single most valuable asset they have. So they have an interest in maximizing the value of it. One way of maximizing the value is by increasing scarcity. And thus you have the well off people (as in, the ones who already own property in the area) packing the local planning boards, preventing higher density development. Or home owner associations with all kinds of anal rules how your house and yard is supposed to look and what you can do there, etc.
Of course, these types of incentive problems are everywhere. E.g. in my country, like I suppose in many developed countries, there's an under-supply of medical doctors. So how many doctors do we need? Hmm, lets ask the experts, the national medical association. Who of course has no interest in inflating the wages and job opportunities of their members..
I always thought it was explained by local government elections generally having a low voter turnout, and homeowners having the strongest incentive to vote. But I’m not really sure that’s it, if you look at places like LA, local elections generally have very poor turnout, but in SF its actually not that bad.
The cynic in me thinks it’s just run of the mill political corruption. The cities where these problems are the worst have essentially been run by the same group of politicians for quite a long time, and they’re generally elected on platforms of caring about societies less advantaged groups. But time after time they get elected and incrementally make things a bit worse before being elected again. Which could suggest that you win in politics by simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them. But I don’t find that sort of “people are just dumb” line of reasoning very compelling.
In any case, the problem has gotten so bad in many places that’s it’s not possible to fix over any reasonable period of time. If you too imagine the most extreme approach of simply abolishing all zoning and planning regulations over night, housing prices and rent would certainly sharply decline. But then you would have a new problem of millions of mortgages being underwater.
I hope you’re being sarcastic because otherwise this is incredibly contrived. Colonization is one country taking over the governance of another, typically without providing any representation or property rights to said nation/tribe/country/people...
Building housing to support population growth is not even remotely similar to that. Permissive zoning laws (or even better, no zoning laws) don’t even prevent existing residents from using their property their property the way they always have. The restrictive regulations are about making sure that all nearby residents also continue to use their property in a particular way. The idea that buying a house in a particular area somehow entitles you to make sure nobody else who owns a house or property in that area does anything to change it just seems completely insane to me.
A neighbour saying “you can’t build affordable housing on your property, because I like your property the way it is” sounds a lot more similar to colonialism to me.
You accidentally described an even more practical solution than increasing the naturally limited (e.g. good commercial spots in the city center) supply: make neighbourhoods unattractive by building communist era style apartment blocks in beautiful areas to drive prices of victorian houses down...
Want to know the best way to protect against exceedingly high prices? Increase supply. If the market had enough supply to meet its own demand, then that situation wouldn’t be possible. The number one thing that holds back the supply of real estate is insane zoning and planning regulation.
The idea that permanently preserving nonsense like the “character” of neighbourhood, at the cost of affordable housing and business rent has to be one of the most anti-social mobility, anti-equality, openly classist ideas we have in our society. “But what if somebody builds an apartment tower next to my expensive Victorian house?”, good! Maybe there’ll be less people sleeping on the streets and in their cars because of it.