[SoftTalker]

I live in a town where all the officials express politically popular laments about the affordability of housing, but every time a developer wants to build apartments or tear down some old run-down post-war cookie-cutter houses for modern duplexs or tri-levels these same officials run them through a gauntlet of demands and then often as not end up denying the permits.

They say they want dense, walkable, core neighborhoods but when people actually try to build denser housing it's like pulling teeth.

There actually is some building happening but the demand is so far ahead of the supply that it's not nearly enough.

[bilbo0s]

That's not most municipalities though.

There are a lot of places, particularly the high demand places, where the cost of acquiring the houses in the first place is the hang up. Everyone is certain they can get half a mil minimum. That drives costs considerably when you need 1/2 a block, or a full block for high density development. It's not easy. You could even have to end up giving the current land owners some preferential share of the finished development. Which, of course, means there's less profit for other potential partners at the end.

People ask, why are apartments so expensive? In high demand areas, that's a big part of the reason. Land acquisition costs were so high that it precludes building anything that can offer that <USD3000 a month price tag. (And to be honest, that's not even all that affordable really. But it illustrates how the numbers on a lot of these new developments work out.)

Usually the municipality or the state has to step in with some kind of break in order to make the numbers work out. And that's when we get to the step you're talking about where the state or the municipality demands this or that or the other. But the politicians have to demand something for the break, or it's seen as just having handed over taxpayer money to their buddies in construction. ie - corruption.

So from beginning to end, it's a tough problem.

EDIT:

It seems before I even finished typing my message, sibling messages appeared illustrating the point I was making in the last paragraph. There is no way in today's environment of completely broken down professionalism and trust, that a politician can give a concession without getting something for his/her community that s/he can use as justification for the concession. Otherwise, people, rightly or wrongly, just see it as handing free money to a politician's friends.

[no_wizard]

Land value tax would fix this in a hurry. Land owners would be incentivized to sell or make more productive use of their land, which adds enough positive pressure for them to go to market and make a deal. The biggest flaw in US housing is the ability to hold out at effectively no cost even as land value skyrockets. The taxation does not keep pace with the actual value. This allows stubborn sellers who want above market sales to hold out, potentially for years, until someone buys at an inflated price, with no real downside.

Combine with upzoning and it would really stimulate the housing market in short order without subsidy.

Land, being largely finite - especially when you start considering how communities make land more valuable etc - shouldn't be treated as a manufactured good. A land value tax is the only way to bring market incentives to real estate, because otherwise there is no pressure on owners to sell or otherwise make more productive use of land. Our current policies from local to state to federal, all incentivize holding land regardless of its utility.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Land acquisition costs were so high that it precludes building anything that can offer that <USD3000 a month price tag

"The median time for securing approval to build in San Francisco is 627 days" [1]. Land-development loans cost between 8 and 12% [2]. The financing cost alone of that delay thus adds 15 to 20% to the cost of any housing in San Francisco. At the median.

Add the risk of not getting approved and the cost of the lawyers and lobbyists and I wouldn't be surprised if these officials bump real estate costs by 50%.

[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-hou...

[2] https://eyeonhousing.org/2023/05/rates-on-development-and-co...

[aidenn0]

It's death by a thousand cuts. If it takes an architect working 10+ hours a week for 2-3 years get permits, that sets a fairly high floor on the cost for new development.

[FireBeyond]

> I live in a town where all the officials express politically popular laments about the affordability of housing, but every time a developer wants to build apartments or tear down some old run-down post-war cookie-cutter houses for modern duplexs or tri-levels these same officials run them through a gauntlet of demands and then often as not end up denying the permits.

Hah, in my town, the developers and officials are all best friends, posts all over Facebook, going to each other's kids soccer and football games, going on vacation together, going out fishing together...

[vipshek]

Which state is your town located in, out of curiosity? I'm trying to build a mental rolodex of which states have towns that are development-friendly.

[FireBeyond]

Washington. But it also I think depends on which developer you are - seems like two developers here have 90%+ of the new developments.