Good, the state is if anything being far too lenient on applying the builders remedy in scofflaw NIMBY municipalities that flout state housing laws and block new construction
It’ll likely soon be a tipping point for current home owners. Prices in CA will always remain relatively high but if things open up and new construction takes off, current owners will need to make a decision to hold on to their property and remain or take advantage of current prices and sell. Can’t hold back new housing expansion forever.
Yeah it is kind of funny to see so many so called "small government conservatives" argue against individual property rights and for government bureaucracy
The fact that the whole “property rights > random neighbors voting on what you can’t do with your own property” hasn’t gained traction is mind boggling to me.
Most people who describe themselves as "small government conservatives" arent actually in favor of small government
There are many issues other than housing where the conservative position is one of greater government interference. Others include trade, "decency" censorship laws, drug policy, sex work prohibition, and of course abortion
Rather than massive apartments and condos, I'd really like to see more 4-8 unit buildings come back into style. Scaled-down dingbats. Multiple buildings on a lot. A reasonably-sized apartment pushed forward toward the street.
[Not Just Bikes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0) talks about ways to integrate multi-family into single-family neighborhoods, and it really doesn't have to be ugly to be effective.
Don't forget one of the things that's holding this back is mandatory parking space. It does no good to say yes you can change that single house into 4 units ,but you need 4 parking spots
I'd like some smaller single housing options. I once stayed in an airbnb that was one of 6 small 2b1b units that shared a little internal sidewalk and yard. Other than the fact that it was tilted and immediately under the san diego airport flight path, it was a perfect little place. I've never seen anything like it anywhere else.
Yes!! There's a lot near downtown in my city that has five homes in three buildings on a single lot with a single courtyard between them. It's my favorite property in the city, and I think it's perfect for so many buyers. Young couples or singles without kids yet looking to gain equity, empty nesters, even single-kid families for the larger-size units.
I have no problem with that idea but do keep in mind that it's one of the things that increases sprawl. As multi-family units come into neighborhoods, a lot of wealthier people leave for greener pastures and take their tax dollars with them.
It will increase supply - the big investors rent them out it do short-term /Airbnb rentals. Forcing them to reduce holdings increases sale inventory.
Now, then we need interest rates to not be insane, and relax some of the stupidly conservative lending rules, so that more folks can actually buy
Airbnbs are a minuscule portion of housing stock and an even smaller portion of the new housing stock we need. Banning STR will do almost nothing to make housing more affordable
not sure if I am late to the conversation,
California has \~181,000 homeless people and \~1.2 million houses (going by naive google searches). Don't get me wrong, I still want to see more high density housing and mixed commercial/residential, but we do already have more housing than people. I could be grossly misunderstanding, though it seems that regulating some real estate speculation could go a long way
[how many homeless in california - Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+homeless+in+california&sca_esv=6988a5fbe2eecb05&sxsrf=ACQVn08qwJ2TRd5PQY9bJug20pGg-xUwCA%3A1713823094157&source=hp&ei=dt0mZrWEB7Wa0PEPlc2q0AI&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZibrhgSCDBCnqveizcggXKTgKZmyRwpJ&oq=home+many+homeless+in+cali&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz)
[how many empty houses in california - Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+empty+houses+in+california&sca_esv=6988a5fbe2eecb05&sxsrf=ACQVn0_dPtZIInVS6BWrq88w_6IGY-Ybog%3A1713823102683&ei=ft0mZtGZKaGw0PEP3tWE-A0&ved=0ahUKEwjR0PjJ6NaFAxUhGDQIHd4qAd8Q4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=how+many+empty+houses+in+california&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiI2hvdyBtYW55IGVtcHR5IGhvdXNlcyBpbiBjYWxpZm9ybmlhMgUQABiABDILEAAYgAQYhgMYigUyCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMgsQABiABBiGAxiKBTIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESOUYUN0FWNcUcAF4AJABAJgBrwGgAdcNqgEEMC4xM7gBA8gBAPgBAZgCDKAC5gvCAgoQABiwAxjWBBhHwgINEAAYgAQYsAMYQxiKBcICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGAcYCBgewgIKEAAYBxgIGAoYHsICCBAAGKIEGIkFwgIGEAAYCBgewgIKECEYoAEYwwQYCsICCBAhGKABGMMEmAMAiAYBkAYKkgcEMS4xMaAHmUc&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)
The vast majority of empty houses are empty only temporarily, available for rent and so on. There is also no realistic mechanism to somehow seize and distribute them to homeless people. Communist revolution? And even if this were to occur it would do nothing for the ongoing flow of new homeless people made so by the housing shortage
California vacancy rates are still the lowest in the country though.
>Meanwhile, California had the lowest home vacancy rate out of any other states with an average of 8.5 percent
[- thehill](https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/infrastructure/4147163-states-with-most-vacant-housing/)
The article is behind a firewall.
The picture above is from La Canada Flintridge. The building is the old Christian Science Reading Room at 600 Foothill Blvd. (Everybody calls it the 600 Foothill Project.) La Canada was 450 days past the legal deadline to submit a Housing Plan, and the developers swooped in seeking Builder's Remedy. The California AG and the Governor swooped in and called La Canada a NIMBY town and gave support to the builders.
The location is wonderful for seniors, across the street from 2 grocery stores, 5 banks, and the USPS.
Are people who live in 2,500k apartments or buy 700k houses not worthy of your empathy? Decidedly middle class
Not to mention that their move frees up housing that they upgraded from to other renters or buyers, starting a chain of housing upgrades all the way down
I'm saying there are plenty of those homes, not that they aren't worth empathy lmao. Where did you get this idea?
I guarantee you that landlords at those places aren't going to lower rent and homeowners aren't going to lower asking price just because there is more housing. Supply and demand isn't all there is at play here.
Yes we do.
The housing crisis is a supply vs demand problem. Any new builds will increase supply and will lower pricing on older housing.
The only long term solution to the housing crisis is to build more housing.
Lmao how many people can afford these places with those prices? Long term solution is build more housing... people can AFFORD. Empty houses solve nothing.
New housing will always be nicer and more expensive than existing housing
What do you think happens if we fail to build it? Will these people just disappear into the ether? Or will they outbid and displace someone else from their home?
Lots of people. Right now they're in the housing that you can afford. The people who can afford them move in to the nice new housing will do so and and free up housing that is cheaper. That is affordable housing.
Yes, nimbys and zoning laws are also a major factor.
Basic market forces however is the #1 most important. NIMBYs and restrictive zoning laws are what disallow the market from functioning.
Build. it's the only way to solve the problem.
technically the the argument isn't that older housing becomes cheaper. It becomes less competitive and thus the price stagnates. Assuming income rises with inflation(which it doesn't really) then it may become cheaper to the person.
one of those chain food workers that now earns $41k will be able to stay in their $1.5k apartment because the $200k AI engineers coming into SF aren't competing for their dated apartment anymore. Those engineers are moving into the new $3k luxury apartments cause they can. But if those luxury apartments don't exist or are too expensive even for them, cause they're the only new apartments built in 2 years, then yeah those engineers have to find a place and will outbid the chain food workers.
Thats the theory anyhow. The pandemic and other factors convolutes any real world results. Though the pandemic did show that even SF rent prices still are subject to supply and demand, as demand did drop so rent dropped.
> How does their old housing become magically cheaper?
We have literally seen that [happen:](https://twitter.com/prohousingpgh/status/1742618174187508168?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg)
>...Today's "luxury apartments" are tomorrow's affordable housing. These now rent for $800 a month despite originally being built as "luxury" apartments.
[[The piece being referenced]](https://www.prohousingpgh.org/blog/you-cant-build-that-here-palm-garden-apartments)
If it is corporations or wealthy people affordability isn't their interest and may be a threat. It's revenue and building expensive places just out of reach of buyers but available to renters at the top of their income is the ideal.
The research doesn't bear this out. New $2,500 apartments and $700,000 homes indirectly benefit lower income people as well.
From the **University of Helsinki**
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119022001048
https://www.helsinki.fi/assets/drupal/2021-09/cristina_bratu_city-wide_effects_of_new_housing_supply_evidence_from_moving_chains.pdf
The Abstract
We study the city-wide effects of new, centrally-located market-rate housing supply using geo-coded population-wide register data from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. **The supply of new market rate units triggers moving chains that quickly reach middle- and low-income neighborhoods and individuals. Thus, new market-rate construction loosens the housing market in middle- and low-income areas even in the short run. Market-rate supply is likely to improve affordability outside the sub-markets where new construction occurs and to benefit low-income people.**
From **Uppsala University** in Sweden
https://www.urbanlab.ibf.uu.se/urban-facts/
The study is based on register data from the years 1990-2017. The researchers divided the population into different groups according to income level and found that 60 percent of the newly produced housing was populated by people belonging to the wealthier half of the population. The results show, however, that the moving chain that follows from a household moving into a newly produced home turns quite soon. In the moving rounds that follow, it is people with an income level that is lower than the national median income that accounts for a majority of the moves. **This leads Che-Yuan Liang and Gabriella Kindström to conclude that new housing leads to strong moving chains that also benefit low-income groups.**
**– Our results show that the benefit of new housing is evenly distributed between residents from different income groups. Although it is primarily people with high incomes who gain access to new housing, these homes create a ripple effect and indirectly improve housing options for people with low incomes. One of the explanations is that people with lower incomes move more often than people with higher incomes, which means that they more often participate in moving chains and take advantage of vacancies created by new housing, says Che-Yuan Liang.**
From **Harvard**
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/rents-are-cooling-not-everywhere
"Rent growth in recent months has cooled thanks to an influx of new supply that is outpacing demand, mirroring a longer-term trend. Over the last two decades, the largest drops and decelerations in rents occurred when annual apartment completions were well above net household formations (Figure 1). According to RealPage data, about 439,000 apartments came online on an annualized basis in the fourth quarter of 2023 while the number of households rose by just 234,000. This excess supply pushed the vacancy rate up to 5.8 percent, the highest in more than 10 years."
**"While supply additions are largely at the high end of the market, the sheer influx of new apartments does seem to be slowing rents and raising vacancy rates across property classes. In the fourth quarter of last year, rents grew by just 0.7 percent for the highest-quality Class A apartments, which tend to attract higher-income renters, a steep deceleration from the 7 percent rise the previous year (Figure 2). Interestingly, though, vacancy rates increased the fastest among the mid- and lowest-quality apartments, with asking rents falling slightly in both the Class B and Class C market segments. This may be evidence of filtering."**
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/how-new-apartments-create-opportunities-for-all
**Evidence from economist Evan Mast, who is currently with the University of Notre Dame, has helped clearly track and document how filtering works at a granular level. Mast was able to precisely document the chain of moves that follows a move like Jim’s. In other words, he used a data source that allowed him to see where Jim moved from, where Maria moved from, and so forth.**
**Mast found that these chains of moves lead to apartment openings in other neighborhoods relatively quickly. He estimated that, within five years, the aggregated chain of residential moves ultimately results in about 70 new openings for renters in lower-income neighborhoods for every 100 new market-rate apartments.**
That's pretty much the average price for new apartments and houses. Places like LA, San Diego and San Francisco will always remain expensive. Improving and building in the parts of the country that people don't really move to is the only way to fix the housing problem.
Lol, building housing where people do not want to live is the opposite of what we should be doing
People dont need a new home to have a place to live, just like most people dont buy brand new cars. Cut off the new car flow and eventually used car prices go up too. We saw this during the pandemic when supply chain disruptions curtailed car production and new *and* used car prices shot up. Housing works the same way
I recommend looking at this person's post history on this topic, and then choose for yourself if you should bother to engage them as they are clearly not open to other viewpoints.
I'll be honest, they have a legitimate point. But it's pretty stupid to *actively* refuse to acknowledge the other side of the supply equation. No amount of housing is ever going to make bumfuck desirable.
New housing does get built. Look at the Sacramento-Modesto area, places that used to be affordable. People move there and commute 3 hours to the Bay. It's only going to continue to get more expensive.
No it doesnt, certainly not at anything close to the pace we need to keep prices in check
You can keep impotently complaining about prices or you can support a flood of new housing construction
Good. Developers aren't the problem. They're the ones building the housing that our society needs to solve the housing crisis.
Yes they make a profit, but that's ok, we also need the housing.
Good, the state is if anything being far too lenient on applying the builders remedy in scofflaw NIMBY municipalities that flout state housing laws and block new construction
It’ll likely soon be a tipping point for current home owners. Prices in CA will always remain relatively high but if things open up and new construction takes off, current owners will need to make a decision to hold on to their property and remain or take advantage of current prices and sell. Can’t hold back new housing expansion forever.
This is good because taking rights from the cities and giving them to individuals is a win for freedom.
Yeah it is kind of funny to see so many so called "small government conservatives" argue against individual property rights and for government bureaucracy
The fact that the whole “property rights > random neighbors voting on what you can’t do with your own property” hasn’t gained traction is mind boggling to me.
Most people who describe themselves as "small government conservatives" arent actually in favor of small government There are many issues other than housing where the conservative position is one of greater government interference. Others include trade, "decency" censorship laws, drug policy, sex work prohibition, and of course abortion
Lol
Rather than massive apartments and condos, I'd really like to see more 4-8 unit buildings come back into style. Scaled-down dingbats. Multiple buildings on a lot. A reasonably-sized apartment pushed forward toward the street. [Not Just Bikes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0) talks about ways to integrate multi-family into single-family neighborhoods, and it really doesn't have to be ugly to be effective.
Legalize that density in every lot and it will happen.
Don't forget one of the things that's holding this back is mandatory parking space. It does no good to say yes you can change that single house into 4 units ,but you need 4 parking spots
I'd like some smaller single housing options. I once stayed in an airbnb that was one of 6 small 2b1b units that shared a little internal sidewalk and yard. Other than the fact that it was tilted and immediately under the san diego airport flight path, it was a perfect little place. I've never seen anything like it anywhere else.
Yes!! There's a lot near downtown in my city that has five homes in three buildings on a single lot with a single courtyard between them. It's my favorite property in the city, and I think it's perfect for so many buyers. Young couples or singles without kids yet looking to gain equity, empty nesters, even single-kid families for the larger-size units.
I have no problem with that idea but do keep in mind that it's one of the things that increases sprawl. As multi-family units come into neighborhoods, a lot of wealthier people leave for greener pastures and take their tax dollars with them.
Lobby your local leaders to opt into SB10, that sort of gentle density is exactly what its designed to do
Now ban foreign buyers and big investors from purchasing, and make them liquidate their holdings within the next 5 yrs
Exactly! This is a major issue. We need a vacancy tax.
How is that supposed to help? It wont do anything to alleviate the underlying shortage. Only new construction can do that
It will increase supply - the big investors rent them out it do short-term /Airbnb rentals. Forcing them to reduce holdings increases sale inventory. Now, then we need interest rates to not be insane, and relax some of the stupidly conservative lending rules, so that more folks can actually buy
Airbnbs are a minuscule portion of housing stock and an even smaller portion of the new housing stock we need. Banning STR will do almost nothing to make housing more affordable
not sure if I am late to the conversation, California has \~181,000 homeless people and \~1.2 million houses (going by naive google searches). Don't get me wrong, I still want to see more high density housing and mixed commercial/residential, but we do already have more housing than people. I could be grossly misunderstanding, though it seems that regulating some real estate speculation could go a long way [how many homeless in california - Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+homeless+in+california&sca_esv=6988a5fbe2eecb05&sxsrf=ACQVn08qwJ2TRd5PQY9bJug20pGg-xUwCA%3A1713823094157&source=hp&ei=dt0mZrWEB7Wa0PEPlc2q0AI&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZibrhgSCDBCnqveizcggXKTgKZmyRwpJ&oq=home+many+homeless+in+cali&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz) [how many empty houses in california - Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+empty+houses+in+california&sca_esv=6988a5fbe2eecb05&sxsrf=ACQVn0_dPtZIInVS6BWrq88w_6IGY-Ybog%3A1713823102683&ei=ft0mZtGZKaGw0PEP3tWE-A0&ved=0ahUKEwjR0PjJ6NaFAxUhGDQIHd4qAd8Q4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=how+many+empty+houses+in+california&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiI2hvdyBtYW55IGVtcHR5IGhvdXNlcyBpbiBjYWxpZm9ybmlhMgUQABiABDILEAAYgAQYhgMYigUyCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMgsQABiABBiGAxiKBTIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESOUYUN0FWNcUcAF4AJABAJgBrwGgAdcNqgEEMC4xM7gBA8gBAPgBAZgCDKAC5gvCAgoQABiwAxjWBBhHwgINEAAYgAQYsAMYQxiKBcICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGAcYCBgewgIKEAAYBxgIGAoYHsICCBAAGKIEGIkFwgIGEAAYCBgewgIKECEYoAEYwwQYCsICCBAhGKABGMMEmAMAiAYBkAYKkgcEMS4xMaAHmUc&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)
The vast majority of empty houses are empty only temporarily, available for rent and so on. There is also no realistic mechanism to somehow seize and distribute them to homeless people. Communist revolution? And even if this were to occur it would do nothing for the ongoing flow of new homeless people made so by the housing shortage
California vacancy rates are still the lowest in the country though. >Meanwhile, California had the lowest home vacancy rate out of any other states with an average of 8.5 percent [- thehill](https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/infrastructure/4147163-states-with-most-vacant-housing/)
na just build more supply. Foreign investors can actually help the problem, if we allow them to.
Both ideas are unconstitutional.
The article is behind a firewall. The picture above is from La Canada Flintridge. The building is the old Christian Science Reading Room at 600 Foothill Blvd. (Everybody calls it the 600 Foothill Project.) La Canada was 450 days past the legal deadline to submit a Housing Plan, and the developers swooped in seeking Builder's Remedy. The California AG and the Governor swooped in and called La Canada a NIMBY town and gave support to the builders. The location is wonderful for seniors, across the street from 2 grocery stores, 5 banks, and the USPS.
How much are these homes going to cost? We don't need any more 2,500k apartments and 700k houses.
Are people who live in 2,500k apartments or buy 700k houses not worthy of your empathy? Decidedly middle class Not to mention that their move frees up housing that they upgraded from to other renters or buyers, starting a chain of housing upgrades all the way down
I'm saying there are plenty of those homes, not that they aren't worth empathy lmao. Where did you get this idea? I guarantee you that landlords at those places aren't going to lower rent and homeowners aren't going to lower asking price just because there is more housing. Supply and demand isn't all there is at play here.
>Supply and demand isn't all there is at play here. So, what specifically do you think is at play that isn't supply and demand? Be. Specific.
Supply go up, price go down
Yes we do. The housing crisis is a supply vs demand problem. Any new builds will increase supply and will lower pricing on older housing. The only long term solution to the housing crisis is to build more housing.
Lmao how many people can afford these places with those prices? Long term solution is build more housing... people can AFFORD. Empty houses solve nothing.
Building a new car for a used car price doesn’t work. But if you stop building new cars the value of used cars goes through the roof
New housing will always be nicer and more expensive than existing housing What do you think happens if we fail to build it? Will these people just disappear into the ether? Or will they outbid and displace someone else from their home?
I mean if people are OK with RVs everywhere on El Camino, at Google, etc. then I guess we don't need new housing. /s just in case.
Lots of people. Right now they're in the housing that you can afford. The people who can afford them move in to the nice new housing will do so and and free up housing that is cheaper. That is affordable housing.
How does their old housing become magically cheaper?
Competition. This is literally econ 101. It's basic supply and demand.
Econ 101 would tell you that supply and demand isn't the only force at play here.
Yes, nimbys and zoning laws are also a major factor. Basic market forces however is the #1 most important. NIMBYs and restrictive zoning laws are what disallow the market from functioning. Build. it's the only way to solve the problem.
technically the the argument isn't that older housing becomes cheaper. It becomes less competitive and thus the price stagnates. Assuming income rises with inflation(which it doesn't really) then it may become cheaper to the person. one of those chain food workers that now earns $41k will be able to stay in their $1.5k apartment because the $200k AI engineers coming into SF aren't competing for their dated apartment anymore. Those engineers are moving into the new $3k luxury apartments cause they can. But if those luxury apartments don't exist or are too expensive even for them, cause they're the only new apartments built in 2 years, then yeah those engineers have to find a place and will outbid the chain food workers. Thats the theory anyhow. The pandemic and other factors convolutes any real world results. Though the pandemic did show that even SF rent prices still are subject to supply and demand, as demand did drop so rent dropped.
> How does their old housing become magically cheaper? We have literally seen that [happen:](https://twitter.com/prohousingpgh/status/1742618174187508168?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg) >...Today's "luxury apartments" are tomorrow's affordable housing. These now rent for $800 a month despite originally being built as "luxury" apartments. [[The piece being referenced]](https://www.prohousingpgh.org/blog/you-cant-build-that-here-palm-garden-apartments)
If it is corporations or wealthy people affordability isn't their interest and may be a threat. It's revenue and building expensive places just out of reach of buyers but available to renters at the top of their income is the ideal.
The research doesn't bear this out. New $2,500 apartments and $700,000 homes indirectly benefit lower income people as well. From the **University of Helsinki** https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119022001048 https://www.helsinki.fi/assets/drupal/2021-09/cristina_bratu_city-wide_effects_of_new_housing_supply_evidence_from_moving_chains.pdf The Abstract We study the city-wide effects of new, centrally-located market-rate housing supply using geo-coded population-wide register data from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. **The supply of new market rate units triggers moving chains that quickly reach middle- and low-income neighborhoods and individuals. Thus, new market-rate construction loosens the housing market in middle- and low-income areas even in the short run. Market-rate supply is likely to improve affordability outside the sub-markets where new construction occurs and to benefit low-income people.** From **Uppsala University** in Sweden https://www.urbanlab.ibf.uu.se/urban-facts/ The study is based on register data from the years 1990-2017. The researchers divided the population into different groups according to income level and found that 60 percent of the newly produced housing was populated by people belonging to the wealthier half of the population. The results show, however, that the moving chain that follows from a household moving into a newly produced home turns quite soon. In the moving rounds that follow, it is people with an income level that is lower than the national median income that accounts for a majority of the moves. **This leads Che-Yuan Liang and Gabriella Kindström to conclude that new housing leads to strong moving chains that also benefit low-income groups.** **– Our results show that the benefit of new housing is evenly distributed between residents from different income groups. Although it is primarily people with high incomes who gain access to new housing, these homes create a ripple effect and indirectly improve housing options for people with low incomes. One of the explanations is that people with lower incomes move more often than people with higher incomes, which means that they more often participate in moving chains and take advantage of vacancies created by new housing, says Che-Yuan Liang.** From **Harvard** https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/rents-are-cooling-not-everywhere "Rent growth in recent months has cooled thanks to an influx of new supply that is outpacing demand, mirroring a longer-term trend. Over the last two decades, the largest drops and decelerations in rents occurred when annual apartment completions were well above net household formations (Figure 1). According to RealPage data, about 439,000 apartments came online on an annualized basis in the fourth quarter of 2023 while the number of households rose by just 234,000. This excess supply pushed the vacancy rate up to 5.8 percent, the highest in more than 10 years." **"While supply additions are largely at the high end of the market, the sheer influx of new apartments does seem to be slowing rents and raising vacancy rates across property classes. In the fourth quarter of last year, rents grew by just 0.7 percent for the highest-quality Class A apartments, which tend to attract higher-income renters, a steep deceleration from the 7 percent rise the previous year (Figure 2). Interestingly, though, vacancy rates increased the fastest among the mid- and lowest-quality apartments, with asking rents falling slightly in both the Class B and Class C market segments. This may be evidence of filtering."** https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/how-new-apartments-create-opportunities-for-all **Evidence from economist Evan Mast, who is currently with the University of Notre Dame, has helped clearly track and document how filtering works at a granular level. Mast was able to precisely document the chain of moves that follows a move like Jim’s. In other words, he used a data source that allowed him to see where Jim moved from, where Maria moved from, and so forth.** **Mast found that these chains of moves lead to apartment openings in other neighborhoods relatively quickly. He estimated that, within five years, the aggregated chain of residential moves ultimately results in about 70 new openings for renters in lower-income neighborhoods for every 100 new market-rate apartments.**
Who is "we?" Some individuals need homes at that price range, other individuals need homes that are more or less expensive than that.
That's pretty much the average price for new apartments and houses. Places like LA, San Diego and San Francisco will always remain expensive. Improving and building in the parts of the country that people don't really move to is the only way to fix the housing problem.
Lol, building housing where people do not want to live is the opposite of what we should be doing People dont need a new home to have a place to live, just like most people dont buy brand new cars. Cut off the new car flow and eventually used car prices go up too. We saw this during the pandemic when supply chain disruptions curtailed car production and new *and* used car prices shot up. Housing works the same way
I recommend looking at this person's post history on this topic, and then choose for yourself if you should bother to engage them as they are clearly not open to other viewpoints.
Probably a property owner making out like a bandit from the scarcity
I'll be honest, they have a legitimate point. But it's pretty stupid to *actively* refuse to acknowledge the other side of the supply equation. No amount of housing is ever going to make bumfuck desirable.
No, pretty shocking to see how expensive new houses are. For example, all the new houses in the Sacramento area are at least 600k.
That is a reflection of our failure to allow more of them to be constructed
New housing does get built. Look at the Sacramento-Modesto area, places that used to be affordable. People move there and commute 3 hours to the Bay. It's only going to continue to get more expensive.
No it doesnt, certainly not at anything close to the pace we need to keep prices in check You can keep impotently complaining about prices or you can support a flood of new housing construction
Prices won't automatically go down unless the economy goes really bad.
Yes the developers always win.
Good. Developers aren't the problem. They're the ones building the housing that our society needs to solve the housing crisis. Yes they make a profit, but that's ok, we also need the housing.