| ...just that "the government should just let private parties come to whatever agreement they want regarding housing" is an untenable position...cholera outbreaks, riots... You'll note that I asked specifically about cases like heating/min size requirements which have nothing to do with externalities (such as disease outbreaks or fire spreading). So why bring them up? Without than minimum standard, the financial incentive would exist to race properties to the bottom, and while some renters clearly would benefit from the increased choice in living expenses, many more renters would be harmed either by (a) being locked by the market into substandard housing, This claim is not observed in reality. In virtually every market segment including housing, you see a race to meet demand in all market segments, from the top to the bottom. The only way there would be a race to the bottom is if virtually everyone wanted something cheaper than what is currently available and were willing to sacrifice quality to get it. I.e., if the minimum size requirements are hurting almost everyone. Do you believe this is the case? (b) being dragged by their parents or spouses into substandard housing This seems like an extremely roundabout way of imposing minimum parenting standards. An extremely obvious way and far simpler way would simply be to forbid parents to bring their children into dorm-sized apartments. (c) losing their homes when property ownership changed hands and more profit was wrung out of their current houses. Um, this usually happens when landlords want to turn cheaper housing into more expensive housing. I.e., upgrade the projects to luxury apts. Should we also impose quality ceilings on housing? If not, why not? |
The rest, I think we're getting ourselves mixed up. I understand your question: absent externalities, which perhaps could be addressed more effectively with targeted regulations rather than market-restricting housing codes, what's the purpose of having housing codes?
I tried to make two points in my response: first, the reason we have housing codes to begin with --- the observation that the externalities you alluded to in fact were a major social problem around the turn of the last century --- and second, that the reason absent "cholera outbreaks" to impose a minimum standard on urban housing is that a minimum standard for urban housing is an intrinsic good thing that will improve welfare more than greater choice in housing will.
Regarding forbidding children in dorm-sized apartments: sure. Of course, we're countering what you see as an overly broad and market-harming set of laws with a far more intrusive set of laws. Also, if we relax minimum standard housing and that sets off a race to the bottom, we can be in an unattractive position later on of having to recognize that while we don't want kids raised in dorm apartments, the market is such that we no longer have the option to forbid it.
As you know, we're very unlikely to come to agreement here, you and I having polar opposite worldviews on subjects like this, but I do appreciate the challenge. :)