Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's a thread where someone says that too much rental housing acts as a brake on housing values.
In economics, the market, driven by supply and demand, is the arbiter of whether there is too little or too much of a good.
In politics, many people believe they know better than the market, and use political power to alter market outcomes.
Who should decide, and should government alter outcomes if those in power don't like reality?
I think having a certain percentage (up to 20%) of neighborhoods in any given city forbid rentals is not something I would be against, but anything more than that would be bad due to its chance of marginalizing renters, especially those that cannot afford a car and thus need to live close to work or transit.
I think having a certain percentage (up to 20%) of neighborhoods in any given city forbid rentals is not something I would be against, but anything more than that would be bad due to its chance of marginalizing renters, especially those that cannot afford a car and thus need to live close to work or transit.
Are you willing to quantify the cost to renters of said government action, and compensate them accordingly?
Are you willing to quantify the cost to renters of said government action, and compensate them accordingly?
The idea is to keep its scope limited enough to not have to worry about that. Of course I would absolutely be AGAINST doing it without firm and strict regulations in place PRIOR to allowing it, such as requiring that no location be more than 1 or 2 miles from an area with rentals, and that no circle of radius exceeding 3 miles have >20% of standard housing units that disallow rental.
If this proves to not solve the problem, then I'd cut the 20% threshold, first to 10%, then if necessary, to 5%.
I'll also add that I would try to implement a decent school voucher system to help reduce neighborhood segregation by reducing the incentive for parents "to live in a good school district", which is a very real issue we face in America today.
Markets can be valuable tool but are perfectly capable of settling at and then remaining in socially unacceptable equilibria. Use with caution, noting that they are neither a boogeyman nor a panacea.
The idea is to keep its scope limited enough to not have to worry about that. Of course I would absolutely be AGAINST doing it without firm and strict regulations in place PRIOR to allowing it, such as requiring that no location be more than 1 or 2 miles from an area with rentals, and that no circle of radius exceeding 3 miles have >20% of standard housing units that disallow rental.
If this proves to not solve the problem, then I'd cut the 20% threshold, first to 10%, then if necessary, to 5%.
I'll also add that I would try to implement a decent school voucher system to help reduce neighborhood segregation by reducing the incentive for parents "to live in a good school district", which is a very real issue we face in America today.
Some municipalities have "unrelated occupancy" ordinances which prohibit several unrelated individuals from living together as roommates. Would your idea be incompatible with these ordinances?
Markets can be valuable tool but are perfectly capable of settling at and then remaining in socially unacceptable equilibria. Use with caution, noting that they are neither a boogeyman nor a panacea.
Yes, I fully understand that. But isn't that inherently a normative decision? And is that rightly a call for government to make, i.e. is it right for government to usurp the market?
The homeowner next door's "too much" rental housing is my "not enough" rental housing.
As a poor person, any supply of rental housing is "not enough" until it is affordable to me.
Yes, I fully understand that. But isn't that inherently a normative decision?
LIFE is normative. How did markets get to have such value in your world if not by some normative means? The simple facts in economics are that markets are a means, not an end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
And is that rightly a call for government to make, i.e. is it right for government to usurp the market?
Who else IS there? We have governments at all for the very purpose of making and enforcing rules and regulations that represent and implement some entirely normative set of social preferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
The homeowner next door's "too much" rental housing is my "not enough" rental housing. As a poor person, any supply of rental housing is "not enough" until it is affordable to me.
The world is full of petulant whiners. The job of government is to ignore petulant whining.
LIFE is normative. How did markets get to have such value in your world if not by some normative means? The simple facts in economics are that markets are a means, not an end.
Who else IS there? We have governments at all for the very purpose of making and enforcing rules and regulations that represent and implement some entirely normative set of social preferences.
The world is full of petulant whiners. The job of government is to ignore petulant whining.
Clearly, the private sector is also there to determine the supply of rental housing. What would Coase say? (This thread was intended to bring him into it.) Surely he was not one to casually wield the heavy hand of government to override the private sector in the marketplace.
The world may be full of petulant whiners, but government listens to those whiners with enough votes.
Were California homeowners petulant whiners when they passed Proposition 13? Are NIMBY homeowners petulant whiners when they prevail in preventing something they don't want? Are naysayer homeowners petulant whiners when they repeatedly reject school property tax levies and the legislature runs to their rescue by giving them a 2/3 tax cut?
Clearly, the private sector is also there to determine the supply of rental housing. What would Coase say? (This thread was intended to bring him into it.)
Nobel preoccupations notwithstanding, Coase simply isn't worth it. Markets do not operate under any constraint of social conscience or acceptability, and the state at some level is the only logical candidate to limit markets as they come to wander out of bounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
The world may be full of petulant whiners, but government listens to those whiners with enough votes.
Actually, the votes/opinions of the masses are simply ignored to a great extent, and for very good reason. The masses for one thing tend to be overwhelmingly ignorant, and for another, they are easily misled. Why would anyone want to invest in their input on any given issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Were California homeowners petulant whiners when they passed Proposition 13? Are NIMBY homeowners petulant whiners when they prevail in preventing something they don't want? Are naysayer homeowners petulant whiners when they repeatedly reject school property tax levies and the legislature runs to their rescue by giving them a 2/3 tax cut?
That's lot of ground, but to respond in a single word, yes. Stupid governance by ballot box has been one of the chief thorns in California's side. Populism is rarely a good thing these days.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
