[choilive]

Why shouldn't developers be economically rewarded for supplying housing in an area that demands a large amount of housing?

> renters don't react by shopping around for a landlord that's beating out the price of his neighbors

Renters certainly shop around. What makes you think they don't?

> approved even to be a renter is difficult for many, and two, people react often by cutting costs in other areas or by doubling up the occupancy of the home (e.g., getting a roommate).

Yes, and both of those issues can be solved by increasing the supply of housing. If demand greatly outstrips supply, landlords can be as picky as they want on renters. If theres an excess of supply, they will be a bit looser.

[JohnMakin]

> Renters certainly shop around. What makes you think they don't?

I never said they do not. I said that’s not the typical reaction, because moving is very difficult and has a ton of financial and logistical hurdles for most households. “supply and demand, dummy” arguments around the housing market tend to conveniently wave away these costs in the same manner the author waved away gentrification.

[anamax]

> I never said they do not. I said that’s not the typical reaction

It doesn't take many shoppers to make a huge difference.

> because moving is very difficult

There's always a fair number of people new to the area, not to mention people whose situation has changed significantly and there are a lot of people looking for new housing.

Note that rent-control takes the latter group off the market.

Note that someone taking a "new property" off the market (regardless of reason) is exactly the same as not adding said new property. (Ie, it can't make things worse.)

[JohnMakin]

> It doesn't take many shoppers to make a huge difference.

Ok, sure, but when a single landlord buying the new property to do airbnb destroys this entire silly argument right away, that’s a sign to me the argument is working with a flawed premise.