[dionidium]

> This emphasis on single-family homes in their data sources affects the generalizability of their conclusions about the impact of supply constraints across different types of housing markets, especially in dense urban areas where multi-family units and rentals are more prevalent.

People generally seem to struggle with the fact that it's the land, not the house that's on top of it, that's valuable in desirable metro areas, but this reality suggests something really quite lucky, which is that eliminating land-use restrictions probably won't tank single-family housing prices, even as it lowers rents.

Incumbents get richer, because looser zoning rules mean the land is more valuable. Renters and those who otherwise couldn't afford to be incumbents get cheaper rent. It's a fortuitous win-win.

[jlhawn]

yeah but one of the reasons why land value for single family homes is even higher is due to the zoning constraints which cause what I like to call "land value spillover" effects. Land value in suburbs an hour from a city center is higher than it naturally would be because zoning constraints closer to the city center cause housing demand to spread out across a larger geographic area. To give an example in the bay area, the cities of Livermore and Concord primarily exist in the form and population they do today because more homes could not be built closer to the core of the bay area, not to mention places like Antioch, Brentwood, and Tracy.