Protecting home values is certainly a large factor. But "we must be allowed to create a desperate housing crisis in order to enrich ourselves by throttling the market" is not a real strong argument morally speaking.
Protecting home values is certainly a large factor. But "we must be allowed to create a desperate housing crisis in order to enrich ourselves by throttling the market" is not a real strong argument morally speaking.
In my neck of the woods, "maintaining property values" is *the* #1 priority of local governing bodies, ie township trustees and small town city councils. Explicitly stated. People run on that platform and win every election. Citizens demand this for a reason, and it's not just mean spirited greed.
We have no social safety net and a pathetically underfunded and unreliable public pension scheme. Home equity is very often the only path to financial security and a comfortable retirement. Anything that threatens home values is an existential threat to household standard of living and material well being. In this context, protecting home values does become a moral imperative. Simply rephrase to emphasize the counterfactual to understand the position:
"We must be allowed to create a housing surplus in order to impoverish you and your children by flooding the market with new supply".
We can recognize that opposition to more housing, which effectively dilutes the housing stock and makes *my* property worth less, is a rationale response at the household level, while at the same time also recognize the deleterious effects at the macro societal level. Both of things can be simultaneously true. Bridging the gap is a very difficult problem. Nonpublic planner will ever succeed in implement policy that deliberately decrease home prices. Those people will never get elected or will be immediately thrown out.
The Canadian government has had various problems over the last 50 years - supporting mortgage loans, supporting builders, financing more rental builds, preventing foreign buyers, etc. - but in Canada, the highest housing prices are Toronto and Vancouver and politically its difficult to justify programs only aimed to help people in those markets. And anyone who spend a million dollars on a duplex in Toronto is deathly afraid of any government initiative that might jeopardize their equity.
I wonder if pandemic WFH (Work From Home) initiatives may end up being helpful by making it possible for some of us to work in cities without having to live there too.
Protecting home values is certainly a large factor. But "we must be allowed to create a desperate housing crisis in order to enrich ourselves by throttling the market" is not a real strong argument morally speaking.
In my neck of the woods, "maintaining property values" is *the* #1 priority of local governing bodies, ie township trustees and small town city councils. Explicitly stated. People run on that platform and win every election. Citizens demand this for a reason, and it's not just mean spirited greed.
We have no social safety net and a pathetically underfunded and unreliable public pension scheme. Home equity is very often the only path to financial security and a comfortable retirement. Anything that threatens home values is an existential threat to household standard of living and material well being. In this context, protecting home values does become a moral imperative. Simply rephrase to emphasize the counterfactual to understand the position:
"We must be allowed to create a housing surplus in order to impoverish you and your children by flooding the market with new supply".
We can recognize that opposition to more housing, which effectively dilutes the housing stock and makes *my* property worth less, is a rationale response at the household level, while at the same time also recognize the deleterious effects at the macro societal level. Both of things can be simultaneously true. Bridging the gap is a very difficult problem. Nonpublic planner will ever succeed in implement policy that deliberately decrease home prices. Those people will never get elected or will be immediately thrown out.
It is a very difficult problem.
Yes, that's for sure.
The Canadian government has had various problems over the last 50 years - supporting mortgage loans, supporting builders, financing more rental builds, preventing foreign buyers, etc. - but in Canada, the highest housing prices are Toronto and Vancouver and politically its difficult to justify programs only aimed to help people in those markets. And anyone who spend a million dollars on a duplex in Toronto is deathly afraid of any government initiative that might jeopardize their equity.
I wonder if pandemic WFH (Work From Home) initiatives may end up being helpful by making it possible for some of us to work in cities without having to live there too.