|
|
|
|
|
|
by wind0w
2464 days ago
|
|
|
That's correct -- there is no contradiction here. A totally unregulated housing market would be an unmitigated disaster. And some regulations are certainly counter-productive (e.g. exclusionary zoning). The problem isn't "more regulation" or "less regulation" -- it's making affordable housing a priority and crafting policy that is consistent with that goal. The problem isn't that the people in charge are stupid and bad at economics, it's that landlords and developers (and to some extent, homeowners) have a tremendous amount of power and resist the political changes that need to occur in order for housing to become affordable. |
|
|
I also agree that "owners" are likely to try to influence politicians. However, "owners" intentions are probably relevant to the discussion. For instance, there may be existing owners who want to have zoning that prohibits new construction for multifamily units near their golf course. They would see a "developer" who wants to build multifamily units as "bad". Presumably, in this scenario many would support the "developer", ceteris paribus.
On the other hand, if the "owners" were in an area that was being gentrified and there were "developers" who wanted to construct luxury condos in the area (with similar density to the multifamily units discussed above), the "developers" would be "bad" and the "owners" would be the good guys to many.
Politics is inherently involved in both cases as you allude to in your response. The question is which politics is going to better resolve the "crisis" - it appears many will bet on politicians/government to resolve the "crisis". While most politicians can talk a great game, I haven't seen a lot of results from any of them from either party in any geography which tempers my confidence politicians have anything to do with a solution...