[llamaimperative]

No, seriously. I am a landlord. How do I set rent? I ask myself: "How much do people around here earn?" And I set my price at ~30% of that.

I am currently selling a house. How do I set my price? I ask myself: "What salary would someone moving to this area likely be making?" And I set my price accordingly.

Literally none of the zoning laws are necessary. This method is how price is set in 100% of real estate transactions in 100% of localities, regardless of any other regulations.

FWIW I'm also an LVT zealot. Have you read Progress & Poverty yet?

[Ccecil]

Setting rental rates at 30% of median or average income for the area is the wrong way to think about it.

Setting rental rates at 30% of "What the average renter makes" is more reasonable.

This is the issue. There is no "what the market can bear". It is all "that's the way it is".

Every year there is a new excuse why prices go up (covid, fires, elections) but the numbers don't seem to align.

Also, I am not talking about SF or Bay area...the bad math has spread across the country.

Edit: And yes...my area has many vacant homes and even more commercial buildings. They are building high rise towers which people purchase and leave vacant. They buy houses that used to be rentals and tear down the entire neighborhood and leave it that way for years...further pushing out the rentals. It is sad to watch the town I love destroy itself from the inside.

[llamaimperative]

It's not "bad math." It is exactly what the article (and I) describe: real estate's prices are principally set by the local income levels.

If the market couldn't bear it, you'd have vacancy. But you do not.

[no_wizard]

I would have been part of a development project that had it been approved[0], would have been involved in selling a high rise of condos, and the question that kept coming up for me is: "how hasn't someone undercut this market yet?" which is why I pursued it.

Because for instance, you'll rent at 30%, but if there was honest market pressure (and lets face it, there isn't) why wouldn't someone else rent at 28%? Or 25%? etc.

Zoning has real hidden costs, as do all the review stages etc.

Whats funny is how stable all this has been for landlords, builders (to some degree) and realtors. If an area is desirable to live in, you would see economies of scale trickle in - like I mentioned in other comments, why do you think we don't see 25 story condos in desirable areas? Thats zoning in action. You literally can't build it even if you had all the money in the world, because the local laws won't allow it[1]

>Progress & Poverty

The Georgism book? I have read it, been some time since I have and should really revisit it.

[0]: fellow local citizenry ultimately rejected my proposal - I knew it was likely but I had to try. Thats why I have a niche business on that plot now.

[1]: and I have some first hand experience here, its what I originally wanted to do with an aforementioned plot of land that is now a niche little farm growing speciality apple varieties

[llamaimperative]

> Because for instance, you'll rent at 30%, but if there was honest market pressure (and lets face it, there isn't) why wouldn't someone else rent at 28%? Or 25%? etc.

They do! And then like all other markets, equilibrium is found, and that equilibrium point is what moves up as incomes move up.

[no_wizard]

They don’t though not really. We didn’t allow housing to have the same elastic market fluctuations all other markets do.

Yes, there can be minor variations in prices (especially with renting) but the fact of the matter is unlike any other market there is artificial scarcity up and down the chain with real estate

[llamaimperative]

> there is artificial scarcity up and down the chain with real estate

Which, according to this analysis, does not actually significantly affect prices relative to other factors.

I understand your theory and I intuitively don't find it "wrong" per se, but you're staring at an analysis that shows you otherwise. Your critique of it not factoring in things like policy is explicitly wrong: all of those factors are fully accounted for in the ultimate supply elasticity.

So if policy is accounted for (it is), and your theory doesn't hold, it's time to either come up with a different critique of the study or acknowledge it as clear evidence against your theory.

[no_wizard]

It accounts for them in as so far as acknowledging their existence and assigns them limited scope.

What this paper misses is the behavioral economic aspects that these regulations promote, or more importantly do not promote.

They can see the trees but are missing the forest.

[llamaimperative]

No, those policies only matter, definitionally, in so far as they actually affect the elasticity of supply. The elasticity of supply is what they measured and found it does not matter, ergo those policies (and all related hypothetical supply-elasticity-affecting forces) effectively do not matter relative to other factors (well, one factor in particular: income).

[datavirtue]

I would have dug a hole and filled it with water if they rejected my permit.

[appreciatorBus]

If you set your rent at 30% and months, maybe years go by and no one applies, what do you do?

[llamaimperative]

This is discussed elsewhere but "market prices" are a distribution of bids and asks. A buyer or seller can be on the high or low end of that distribution, which does not change the fact that the distribution itself moves up as local incomes go up.

[Ccecil]

Market prices are based on whatever number the investor decides to make up.

Whether it be another investor or a website telling them to do so. There is no basis in reality.

The "housing shortage" is really an "affordable housing shortage". Don't get the 2 confused. One is based on reality...one is based on speculation.