Yes. This is the exact same argument we are having in Australia. The 'greedy developers' argument is put out there by people who live in restored workers cottages in the inner city and it has me fuming. We also need much stronger rental protections, and 5-10 year leases.
I agree more housing is needed, but in NYC, for example, new buildings are going up all the time. However, once they are built, they stay empty.
When I was living in Brooklyn, several “luxury” condos were erected. I maybe saw one or two people ever leaving the one near me.
Now logic would dictate that this would drive down the property values, except we allow for investment properties. And, no, I'm not talking about AirBnB, where at least people can come and invest in the local economy. I'm talking about people buying properties and just letting them sit there. For some reason nobody ever talks about this.
"Many people who are have genuinely progressive values oppose new housing because they genuinely believe that doing so somehow puts them on the side of the working people and against the greedy developers. Unfortunately, no. It puts you on the side of the Blackstone Real Estate Investment Trust and its pricing power."
This is wrong. Progressives opposed to new (private) housing *does* position them against private developers. Supporting all new housing, including any private projects, *does* necessitate supporting private developers.
I think the research on the pricing impact of new housing is more mixed than some seem to think, but it also shouldn't matter for coalitional purposes. If YIMBYs genuinely want to build a coalition with left-NIMBYs, they should limit their advocacy to new public housing. Nothing about doing so is counter to maximizing both public and private housing construction because here's the thing: Developers are more than capable of advocating for themselves. They all have more than adequate capital and networks to advocate for their projects and navigate the building process without YIMBYs demanding the working class plow its limited resources and energy into supporting private projects. All the developers (in NYC at least) have external lobbyists at every level of government, as well as internal employees, dedicated to advocating for their projects. If developers feel that they don't have adequate resources for that, they can reallocate some of their billions in executive pay for that purpose.
If YIMBYs have the strength and organization to get projects built, they should apply that strength and organization to getting new public housing built. I'd be thrilled to come out to a rally with YIMBYs for new public housing literally anywhere, but it'd be great if someone could explain to me why I should join a dozen staffers and lobbyists from Related to advocate on their behalf at a community board meeting, just so Stephen Ross can donate the project's resulting profits to Trump's next campaign.
Yes, yes, and yes. This is why I have been supporting CA YIMBY for years and will continue to do so until the cost of housing matches the cost of construction. We are choosing self-imposed deprivation. We can have more just be allowing ourselves to have more. It's incredible.
A complication of this is the challenge of supplying enough potable water to the current population, not to mention the increased population which will accrue when enough housing is available. There is new construction going up outside of the major cities in California, but the area is already using more water than is being replaced in the aquifers. We’re heading directly towards a supply cliff regarding the arguably most important resource for human survival, and few groups are seriously interested in alternatives such as desalination plants. “Build it and they will come”, by all means, but they will have to ration water or die of thirst.
I will admit that I don't know a ton about economics and that I only have a limited understanding of housing policy, although I've been trying to get my head around it a little more, but whenever I read something like this I can't help but feel like there's some degree of sleight of hand happening. Who is the "we" that must build more housing? Why is skepticism of the good intentions of property developers always waved away? And why are arguments like "public housing is good, but all we can do is vaguely support it, and all focus must go towards empowering private development" always included?
Public housing scares me a little. It's a great concept, but the minute a pol stops wanting to support the upkeep and maintenance of the project (yes, I know the connotation of that word), or budgets get cut, it seems like it becomes more degrading than uplifting, as well as a boondoggle to get back up to snuff.
So wait - Blackstone funds developers. If developers and YIMBYs are part of the (private sphere) solution, shouldn't we embrace that? I say more private and MUCH more public housing.
Yes. This is the exact same argument we are having in Australia. The 'greedy developers' argument is put out there by people who live in restored workers cottages in the inner city and it has me fuming. We also need much stronger rental protections, and 5-10 year leases.
I join this guy in saying "yes to more density and more housing, but no to relying on the private market."
https://48hills.org/2023/08/what-kim-mai-cutler-and-the-yimbys-keep-getting-wrong/
I agree more housing is needed, but in NYC, for example, new buildings are going up all the time. However, once they are built, they stay empty.
When I was living in Brooklyn, several “luxury” condos were erected. I maybe saw one or two people ever leaving the one near me.
Now logic would dictate that this would drive down the property values, except we allow for investment properties. And, no, I'm not talking about AirBnB, where at least people can come and invest in the local economy. I'm talking about people buying properties and just letting them sit there. For some reason nobody ever talks about this.
"Many people who are have genuinely progressive values oppose new housing because they genuinely believe that doing so somehow puts them on the side of the working people and against the greedy developers. Unfortunately, no. It puts you on the side of the Blackstone Real Estate Investment Trust and its pricing power."
This is wrong. Progressives opposed to new (private) housing *does* position them against private developers. Supporting all new housing, including any private projects, *does* necessitate supporting private developers.
I think the research on the pricing impact of new housing is more mixed than some seem to think, but it also shouldn't matter for coalitional purposes. If YIMBYs genuinely want to build a coalition with left-NIMBYs, they should limit their advocacy to new public housing. Nothing about doing so is counter to maximizing both public and private housing construction because here's the thing: Developers are more than capable of advocating for themselves. They all have more than adequate capital and networks to advocate for their projects and navigate the building process without YIMBYs demanding the working class plow its limited resources and energy into supporting private projects. All the developers (in NYC at least) have external lobbyists at every level of government, as well as internal employees, dedicated to advocating for their projects. If developers feel that they don't have adequate resources for that, they can reallocate some of their billions in executive pay for that purpose.
If YIMBYs have the strength and organization to get projects built, they should apply that strength and organization to getting new public housing built. I'd be thrilled to come out to a rally with YIMBYs for new public housing literally anywhere, but it'd be great if someone could explain to me why I should join a dozen staffers and lobbyists from Related to advocate on their behalf at a community board meeting, just so Stephen Ross can donate the project's resulting profits to Trump's next campaign.
Yes, yes, and yes. This is why I have been supporting CA YIMBY for years and will continue to do so until the cost of housing matches the cost of construction. We are choosing self-imposed deprivation. We can have more just be allowing ourselves to have more. It's incredible.
A complication of this is the challenge of supplying enough potable water to the current population, not to mention the increased population which will accrue when enough housing is available. There is new construction going up outside of the major cities in California, but the area is already using more water than is being replaced in the aquifers. We’re heading directly towards a supply cliff regarding the arguably most important resource for human survival, and few groups are seriously interested in alternatives such as desalination plants. “Build it and they will come”, by all means, but they will have to ration water or die of thirst.
I will admit that I don't know a ton about economics and that I only have a limited understanding of housing policy, although I've been trying to get my head around it a little more, but whenever I read something like this I can't help but feel like there's some degree of sleight of hand happening. Who is the "we" that must build more housing? Why is skepticism of the good intentions of property developers always waved away? And why are arguments like "public housing is good, but all we can do is vaguely support it, and all focus must go towards empowering private development" always included?
Public housing scares me a little. It's a great concept, but the minute a pol stops wanting to support the upkeep and maintenance of the project (yes, I know the connotation of that word), or budgets get cut, it seems like it becomes more degrading than uplifting, as well as a boondoggle to get back up to snuff.
So wait - Blackstone funds developers. If developers and YIMBYs are part of the (private sphere) solution, shouldn't we embrace that? I say more private and MUCH more public housing.