Housing & Homeless Problem

[Ken]

Second, the housing crisis in this country is hitting cities the hardest. Not just big coastal cities like NYC and LA but also increasingly cities in more central parts of the country. There are a lot of reasons for that but basically very few cities in this country are managing to increase their housing stock at the same rate as population growth. Often this is very deliberate due to restrictive zoning requirements, environmental review requirements, and so forth. And some cities like those in Silicon Valley would prefer to attract industry rather than housing because it makes them more money.

Doesn't the market work this kind of stuff out eventually? Wages eventually have to rise in order to attract talent to the area with its higher cost of living. Businesses eventually end up moving elsewhere with less regulation and housing restrictions for its workforce. If it's profitable enough, somebody will eventually build the housing units.

Does this simply not get fixed without government intervention in your opinion - or are you suggesting the government needs to get out of the way in terms of relaxing zoning & environmental rules and such things?

In a true free market economy it would work exactly as you describe. However housing is not a free market economy. There are all kinds of government interventions in the market from things like rent control in NYC to extremely restrictive zoning laws in many cities that essentially outlaw the construction of most types of housing except high-priced single family homes for the wealthy.

What I am suggesting is that in most instances LESS government intervention would result in a more robust and responsive housing market. And would allow many more people to afford to put roofs over the heads of their families.

The homeless crisis isn't just degenerate vagrant drug users and mentally ill who are the most visible. It is many hundreds of thousands of families, perhaps millions, who can no longer afford to live in their home towns.

It is also a generational inequity. Many older people bought homes decades ago when homes were cheap but younger generations no longer have that possibility in many cities. Largely due to government interference in the housing market.

[Josh]

Ken,

In a true free market economy it would work exactly as you describe. However housing is not a free market economy. There are all kinds of government interventions in the market from things like rent control in NYC to extremely restrictive zoning laws in many cities that essentially outlaw the construction of most types of housing except high-priced single family homes for the wealthy.

There are no government interventions here where I am.

Maybe you need to look past Democrat-controlled blue cities which are well known for high crime, high rents, and high levels of corruption.

[Ken]

Dense housing causes lots of problems, and in a city places demands on infrastructure and means people in residential neighbourhoods suddenly have to deal with a crushing influx of people, undesirable businesses like liquor stores and an increase in crime.

Paris and Barcelona are about 20x more dense than most American cities. and yes, they are horrible places to live aren't they? Look at all that terrible density. The horror.





I suppose low density rural Ohio is so much better?

[mike]

Ken,

In a true free market economy it would work exactly as you describe. However housing is not a free market economy. There are all kinds of government interventions in the market from things like rent control in NYC to extremely restrictive zoning laws in many cities that essentially outlaw the construction of most types of housing except high-priced single family homes for the wealthy.

There are no government interventions here where I am.

Maybe you need to look past Democrat-controlled blue cities which are well known for high crime, high rents, and high levels of corruption.

Last year I had to get off the interstate in Gary, Indiana. My goodness. Just look at the pictures that come up when you google the city. It looks like a third world country.

[Josh]

Dense housing causes lots of problems, and in a city places demands on infrastructure and means people in residential neighbourhoods suddenly have to deal with a crushing influx of people, undesirable businesses like liquor stores and an increase in crime.

Paris and Barcelona are about 20x more dense than most American cities. and yes, they are horrible places to live aren't they? Look at all that terrible density. The horror.

What are rents in the pictured places?

I suppose low density rural Ohio is so much better?

Well, that’s what you get with no zoning and no density limits. There’s nothing stopping anyone in those places from going to 20X density. (Trailer parks are actually fairly high density and many cities ban them.)

[barnhart]

Last year I had to get off the interstate in Gary, Indiana. My goodness. Just look at the pictures that come up when you google the city. It looks like a third world country.

Try googling "south Bronx burning", by contrast Gary IN seems orderly.

[RZehr]

Oregon - the whole state - has some of the most restrictive zoning laws of any state. To start with, about 24 million acres are either zoned farmland, or forest land. This means that it is almost impossible to get approval to build a house on this land.
And beyond zoning, we have strict, statewide restrictions against parceling off / subdividing these lands. For example, farmland cannot be subdivided into smaller parcels than 80 acres (160 acres in most of the state). And to do any subdivision, you have to start at least 160 acres (240 acres in most of the state). So, to fit the first criteria, you need 160 acres. Then you are permitted to subdivide it into two 80 acre lots. But that doesn’t mean that you can build. Secondly, you have to be the farmer on that specific land, and document that 80 acres produced a gross income of at least $80,000 in 3 of the last 5 years.
Then you can likely (few other barriers) get a permit, but only if it is going to be your primary residence. No, rental, no selling to family so they can build on it.

Additionally, 33 million acres in Oregon are owned by the Federal government. No building houses there. So essentially, over 90% of the land in Oregon is undevelopable for housing. Basically all the remaining land is already build on with existing housing and commercial and industrial.

Then we have the whole wetlands criteria, which they keep expanding the definition of to prohibit building. And then you have to be out of any wildlife corridors, which are vast.
The remaining land? A mere pittance is buildable. Last week a realtor told me of a “pretty good deal”, which was a 5 acre lot for $230,000.
Meanwhile, far out in the desert here, rocky and dry with no services, and no road, and a couple hours from town was 160 acres for sale for $44,000. But you can not get a permit to build on it. You could really do anything with it.

Then if you buy a 6,000 sq foot lot in town, they keep piling on the building code requirements, which add many thousands of dollars to the project.

Last week I went to a public meeting where the question was whether or not to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (up to 900 sq ft second house on your property). While they had a survey that showed over 80% of the public in favor of permitting them, all the people who actually showed up, spoke against it. The commissioners voted it down.

[Josh]

Last week I went to a public meeting where the question was whether or not to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (up to 900 sq ft second house on your property). While they had a survey that showed over 80% of the public in favor of permitting them, all the people who actually showed up, spoke against it. The commissioners voted it down.

These tend to turn into AirBNBs which bring blight and crime to neighbourhoods. California passed a law mandating any parcel must be allowed to build up to 4 ADUs, and it hasn't exactly done anything to make California housing prices better - it just means your neighbours can suddenly have people coming and going night and day in your formerly-residential neighbourhood.

Regardless, in red states, there tends not to be nearly so much regulation, and housing is indeed cheaper. That's why I propose to people like Ken that they try more right wing policies and give up their left wing policies, if they want cheaper housing and less homelessness. In the county I live in, all homeless people have been provided services - basically everyone is housed, sometimes in group home situations, halfway houses, etc.

The very few people still on the street are there because they choose to be.

[barnhart]

NYC has a multi faceted approach that both works and fails at the same time. Long term solutions include rent control, massive public housing stock, a developed shelter system and community boards with real power to derail "development" the community finds unfavorable. Developers are allowed extra leeway to put up new projects if a certain percentage of the units meet the"affordable" criteria. In the last several years there has been a big push to rezone low density areas near subway terminals to encourage new housing stock. The block adjoining mine went from single family to 14 floor zoning. That really shakes up a neighborhood.

Even so the official unhoused numbers are typically 60 to 70 thousand. Sometimes I wonder if the large cities in south America might do just about as well by allowing unofficial favellas where codes, policing and most city services are not available. At least the poor have a roof, even if it is several sheets of tin.

[RZehr]

My county does not allow any short term rentals / AirBnb. Any rental less than 45 days are banned.