You guys are so close to acknowledging that immigration breaks the housing system. You even mentioned that 50000 californians broke Montana's housing. So why would that not apply to the huge number of legal and illegal immigrants from without the us?
As encouraging as some of this news is, talk of TOD has been around for over 35 years and never really taken seriously by local officials. I don't see how we change the culture of local governance with such fragmented local governance. Similarly, there's no value capture mechanism for being in the right place of federal and state road building... but I could go on.
My question to single out is whether any of your panel and experts have noticed that "condo fees" in a typical multi-family building can be about 40%-60% of the rent in a building with similarly sized units? That's a fee that's not going toward any expense for high quality construction. It's really out of whack with "house fees" in much of the rest of the world, where ownership in multi-family buildings is much more common.
Part of this conversation is about getting rental rates lower through basic market functions, but it's also about lowering purchase prices, especially for first-time buyers. Not addressing some of the legal/structural issues that result in high HOA/condo fees seems like ignoring a huge opportunity for making ownership a reality for many American households.
Great discussion! I have a question about this: "...zoning reform can’t solve a problem where houses are selling and renting at their construction cost. That’s a problem of people having low incomes and not being able to afford construction costs." Alex, doesn't this miss the filtering effect? Even in lower-income areas facing gentrification pressure, couldn't zoning reform that allows more housing prevent displacement by reducing pressure on existing stock? The new units might be expensive initially, but they absorb demand that would otherwise drive up prices on housing where lower-income residents currently live. Isn't this anti-displacement benefit of zoning reform important even in markets without a large price-to-construction-cost wedge?
I think yours is a good question in the narrow parameters that you set, but I'm having a hard time imagining this scenario in real life. If you have a neighbourhood where the existing housing stock is selling for, say, $100/sf, I don't know who is building anything near there. If the pressure on the existing supply is so weak, an new home of even superior quality would be hard to sell.
Maybe you're thinking of being able to split an existing rowhome into two units. I think that's very likely, and is quite common in historic "rust belt" city centres. This does face opposition in many communities, though, because it inevitably means that the new households you're creating will be lower income. It's a silly argument, especially when we recognise that the value of the existing property likely went up significantly, but that doesn't address the neighbours' fears of all the intangibles they perceive come with smaller, denser housing.
You guys are so close to acknowledging that immigration breaks the housing system. You even mentioned that 50000 californians broke Montana's housing. So why would that not apply to the huge number of legal and illegal immigrants from without the us?
As encouraging as some of this news is, talk of TOD has been around for over 35 years and never really taken seriously by local officials. I don't see how we change the culture of local governance with such fragmented local governance. Similarly, there's no value capture mechanism for being in the right place of federal and state road building... but I could go on.
My question to single out is whether any of your panel and experts have noticed that "condo fees" in a typical multi-family building can be about 40%-60% of the rent in a building with similarly sized units? That's a fee that's not going toward any expense for high quality construction. It's really out of whack with "house fees" in much of the rest of the world, where ownership in multi-family buildings is much more common.
Part of this conversation is about getting rental rates lower through basic market functions, but it's also about lowering purchase prices, especially for first-time buyers. Not addressing some of the legal/structural issues that result in high HOA/condo fees seems like ignoring a huge opportunity for making ownership a reality for many American households.
Great discussion! I have a question about this: "...zoning reform can’t solve a problem where houses are selling and renting at their construction cost. That’s a problem of people having low incomes and not being able to afford construction costs." Alex, doesn't this miss the filtering effect? Even in lower-income areas facing gentrification pressure, couldn't zoning reform that allows more housing prevent displacement by reducing pressure on existing stock? The new units might be expensive initially, but they absorb demand that would otherwise drive up prices on housing where lower-income residents currently live. Isn't this anti-displacement benefit of zoning reform important even in markets without a large price-to-construction-cost wedge?
I think yours is a good question in the narrow parameters that you set, but I'm having a hard time imagining this scenario in real life. If you have a neighbourhood where the existing housing stock is selling for, say, $100/sf, I don't know who is building anything near there. If the pressure on the existing supply is so weak, an new home of even superior quality would be hard to sell.
Maybe you're thinking of being able to split an existing rowhome into two units. I think that's very likely, and is quite common in historic "rust belt" city centres. This does face opposition in many communities, though, because it inevitably means that the new households you're creating will be lower income. It's a silly argument, especially when we recognise that the value of the existing property likely went up significantly, but that doesn't address the neighbours' fears of all the intangibles they perceive come with smaller, denser housing.