This drives prices up for homes in the city to a point that only if you are in a relationship and over 30 you might be able to buy your first 'home'.

There may be downsides to the measures proposed, but the fun part of government is that you can learn, change and adapt. Because you write the rules, you can change and you can use this ability to create a better living environment for people, which is the ultimate end goal.

This key problem is in no way solved by the political proposal, as "the rich" can move to buy older real estate instead.

> This drives prices up for homes in the city to a point that only if you are in a relationship and over 30 you might be able to buy your first 'home'.

The reason that prices are going up is because a lot of people want to spend a lot of money for the real estate, so in the end you must take a moral stand regarding who owns the right to live and/or own real estate in the city, and what this right is based on. Long term consistency is key here, because short lived stabs at the market like this one will not make any difference apart from creating volatility.

As soon as you create economical impediments to achieve your "moral", or "political" goals, you must ask yourself questions almost like a penetration tester: how would I exploit this law if I wanted to stand to gain from it economically? There's almost always a way, and unless you take this into account before creating the law, you're just making the problem worse, and more complicated (normally the same thing).

> the fun part of government is that you can learn, change and adapt

Government shouldn't be having fun with laws. They should be enacting laws that are thoroughly studied, where the possible outcomes are weighed against eachother to minimize risk and maximize the odds of success. Of course you always need to evaluate and adapt, but this proposal is sloppy to say the least, perhaps even malicious.

I suspect this proposal has less to do with protecting middle class people's ability to be home owners, and has more to do with preventing perverse incentives around real estate development from having a long-term negative impact on Amsterdam's housing stock.

For instance: look at what's happening in Toronto. There are a massive number of high-end, 1-br condos being built because that's the type of property which makes sense as an investment instrument. Large swaths of the renting population are not served by that type of property, but investors are the customer for real-estate development, so that's what gets built.

It all comes down to the same discussion: what are the inherent rights of a native population when compared to foreign capital owners. It's subjective. Your opinion could be anywhere between "money buys you property rights" to "land is owned by living on it" and you wouldn't be objectively wrong in any case, since you're making a moral argument.

The problem appears when a moral argument should enter legal and political reality. When you look at this proposal through the lens of "what will be achieved", it's hard to be optimistic.

Indeed it is, and in an honest democracy a question of this importance would be voted on in a referendum. But before doing that you'd first want the public to be informed of the facts. But in Canada the government won't even do that - we have no idea how much property is being purchased by foreign investors directly, or via proxy friends/relatives who have obtained Canadian citizenship.

Even that sort of moral argument is short-sighted because natives benefit a lot by investments by foreign capital owners, specially in real estate.

And the funny thing is that the value of those properties comes to a large degree purely out of the overall rise in real estate prices, not because they satisfy the basic human need of a shelter. I wonder what the price of these properties will do when a real estate crisis hits. They are clearly not a place where people actually want to live.

So the key thing here is to setup a society and government that can quickly respond + adapt and fix loopholes.

Cities don't exist for rich people to exploit. They are the places where we live our lives, the focus is quality of life.

Not some theoretical discussions about 'markets'.

Not always. This law has some very obvious loopholes that I would be very surprised if they weren't abused, should it ever become reality.

> So the key thing here is to setup a society and government that can quickly respond + adapt and fix loopholes.

Nobody's saying that this is a bad thing, and it doesn't in any way require badly thought out laws like this one.

> some theoretical discussions about 'markets'

"Some theoretical discussion" is exactly what is missing in this proposal, which is why it's so badly thought out and will miss the mark, to nobody's benefit but the property owners of what politicians arbitrarily decide is "old" real estate.

We've already tried this, it doesn't work. Housing is valued exclusively by the value of the housing around it. Building more housing raises the value (and therefore the cost) of all nearby housing, and does so continuously until the economy resets.

So, if you are a private equity firm, you love this, because it's a guaranteed safe place to park tons and tons of money.

But if you are a human who needs to buy housing to survive, more housing hurts you, because it drives the "fair-market value" for all nearby housing higher, making any specific unit less affordable to you personally. Paradoxically, the more housing construction happens, the less likely a person can actually get housing.

---

There isn't a "just supply vs demand" on housing, because supply isn't fungible, and (with the exception of perhaps California), the demand is not primarily driven by people, but by private equity. You can't out-build private equity, no matter how many cranes hit the sky, because (currently) the act of taking the loan to begin construction generates more of the private equity that you are trying to outbuild. To fix housing, you have to fix equity first, because (in most but not all cities) the finances are the problem, not some huge influx of new residents.

"We'll just out-build these high prices" is the housing equivalent of "we'll lose money on each transaction, but make up for it in volume".

Really? Maybe I'm being overly simplistic, but surely building enough dwellings to exceed the immediate demand would lead to prices dropping?

Could you point towards some links to learn more about this?

I thought Toronto was doing a good enough job at building lots of housing, and it still hasn't worked.

The issue is that in order to actually have prices dropping, you need to overbuild by a bit. But prices dropping is an undesirable outcome for real estate developers, who are almost exclusively responsible for building new housing in a city. Naturally they don't want to shoot themselves in the foot, so they will only ever build as much as to satisfy the current demand, but not quite, and try hard not to exceed it.

Even with government-issued social housing, there's no way to solve this: as long as there's any space for developers in a market, their new supply is going to adapt elastically to just underserve current demand.

The only thing that has practically lead to supply-related price drops is an irrational boom followed by a realization that developers have actually (unintentionally!) overbuilt this time. Unfortunately, irrational booms are also accompanied by prior fast price increases and a lot of pain on all sides, so we probably shouldn't advocate for one.

So, I'm not sure what a good solution is to actually provide more supply than needed and have prices dropping, but the free market is not it. Especially as real estate developers get better with forecasting demand.

Maybe demographics will help a bit in 20 years or so.

If you make everywhere effectively closer to everywhere else, there is more competition for "good location", and landowners can't charge as much for any specific spot. Or at least they can't until demand goes up again.

Tunnel width does not depend directly on the gauge but on the loading gauge, i.e. the size of the car. That is generally wider than would be required by the gauge.

On the other hand, using the same gauge as other rail means you can run trains across both old and new infrastructure.

Not sure about the claim that this has been tried. Most cities where building housing is happening are having rents increase at much lower rates than cities like SF that refuse housing construction.

Moreover if we didn’t just focus on private construction and returned to pre 1980s style construction of massive public housing projects, it seems likely to me that supply and demand could start working and hold rents steady or reduce them. (E.g. something interesting I saw on this recently https://twitter.com/RottenInDenmark/status/11080317257523363... )

Instead of public housing most anti-housing activity seems to be focusing on failed policies like rent controls.

There’s nothing special about private equity that gives it better access to markets like property.

“We’ll just out-build these prices” is the equivalent of “Charge more” when the problem is that you, a consultant, are too busy. If you keep doing it for long enough the problem goes away. Tokyo has grown by 1.5m people since 2001. House prices and rent have been basically flat throughout. Have the metropolitan areas you’re talking about added about 100,000 people a year for almost two decades?

That doesn't mean actually increasing the housing supply is a bad idea. Heck, maybe they could have a tax on vacant units to try to force those investment properties that are already built on to the rental market. Or if that's too hard to enforce, raise the property taxes enough where vacant units look undesirable as an investment.

I don't know about the speculative investment market, but at least for the rental market demand is people. I think there are very few people just renting a place with the intention of leaving it unoccupied forever. If there were affordable rental properties everywhere, I think it would be less of a problem even if real estate investments remained expensive.

Good policy beats discretion reliably and consistently for reasons of dynamic consistency. If you find yourself announcing a policy when you don’t even have the details ready you are doing it half assed. You certainly haven’t had tax lawyers or economists with expertise in mechanism design look over your policy proposals. You are an unserious person, making policy up on the fly, floating trial balloons while running off your mouth, a Trump or AOC.

Cities don’t exist for rich people to exploit but if you build less housing than there is demand for the richest will, on average, get more of what’s available than the poorer.

No. Real estate is 80% driven by finance and tax policy.

The condo craze is just like the big box and franchises hotel boom a 15 years ago. Lots of money flows in, and the buildings get sold when they start losing money around the 15 year mark when depreciation catches up. Many of the marginal “luxury condos” will be shitty rentals in the 2030s when maintenance becomes a problem, and you’ll see them rapidly go down market.

By that time, the money will have moved on the the next thing, and we’re all stuck with the mess.

What mess would that be? A wealth of cheap condos in a market flooded by companies liquidating their investment?

You may recall 2008, when this phenomena happened with single-family homes. Condos are much more fickle investments.

After 2008 the housing market just more or less closed down. Nobody was selling as their mortgage was under water, so they just stayed where they were.

Hum. No. People don't want to spend a lot. But the whole system is built so owners can extract rent either from rentals or from buyers to which banks will lend enough money to meet the seller's price.

The fact that prices are going up proves this is not true.

No. Prices go up because demand is higher than supply and people are forced to live somewhere (as in "reasonably near their work") and are therefore forced to spend lots of money on this. They wouldn't do so if they did not have to.

Low income people can't buy a house. They can only afford to rent. This law would criminalize the ability of poor people to live in the city, and it would do so to help the wealthy home owners.

This does nothing to prevent anyone from renting apartments, condos, or houses built over five years ago.

Poor people aren't the ones renting brand-new construction. The renters of new houses are going to be people who could have and would have bought the house, if super rich landlords weren't jacking up prices.

Do you see the obvious contradiction here?

All this law does is take away poor people's ability to rent a home, that will instead be sold to a wealthy home owner.

If you can afford to purchase a new home then you are way way more wealthy than someone who can only afford to rent that same home.

Ironically, although literally they are seeking rent they are not necessarily, economically speaking, literal rent-seekers. The economists' abuse of language remains an unfolding tragedy.

Economic rent seeking is characterised by seeking a cut of the profits without creating any new value. If you buy a new house and rent it out, you have just caused new wealth to be created and you are recovering the capital costs, so a reasonable argument can be mounted that it isn't technically rent seeking.

If you want to clamp down on rent seeking, the best and potentially only reasonable way is a land tax, so people can't profit off controlling an irreplaceable asset that doesn't require maintenance.

> This drives prices up for homes in the city...

One of several factors. Credit availability is also a big deal.

These houses already exist though. What new wealth is being created by purchase with intent to rent vs purchase with intent to occupy vs the builder offering the building for rent?

I don't know much about the housing market, but arguing from theory, if the new build market is restricted to _only_ people who can afford to buy a house, that might be a much smaller group of people than individuals who want to live in the area but just cannot afford the cost of building a house. Renting is good for that not-enough-to-buy group.

For example, I couldn't afford to live in a city if I had to own my own home. I don't have that much money on hand. I'd rather rent land from a landlord than money from a bank. At least the landlord is carrying the risk.

There is value being created here in the market for risk, flexibility, and capital allocation. Residents who prefer to rent rather than take on the commitment of ownership also capture some of this surplus.

The advantage of renting compared to buying is that you can occupy an house for a limited amount of time without being financially exposed to changes in the value of the house, without having to find a new buyer when you move out and without needing upfront capital or credit to buy it (there are of course also disadvantages to renting, so some prefer to buy instead).

Even if we removed the concept of ownership, which is the only way to remove rent seeking behavior, how are we going to address the limited supply in the face of extreme demand?

The long term structural solution in my opinion is to create more desireable places to live. This involves significant wealth transfers from already wealthy places to investing in infrastructure, education, communities in other locations, thereby increasing the supply of desirable places to live. That’s really the only way prices can be brought down in real terms.

I think the pessimistic case is that foreigners+investors make convenient scapegoats, the public has reasonable demands but will fall for plans that sound good on paper and don't work, and entrenched interests ensure that the actual root causes will never be fixed.

If you think about it, if 8 households want 5 housing units, there's just no way it can be affordable to all 8. Not by paying the 8 more, not by discouraging renting or owning, not by prohibiting investment etc.

The only things I can think of that could actually solve the root cause are:

1) Build more housing

2) Increase the housing available somehow without building more (tax units that are left empty, allow renting places that weren't allowed before).

3) Decrease the demand for housing. Maybe try to drive high-paying jobs away, or try to raise the minimum wage high enough that business go under.

Otherwise I just don't see anything else that could work, without creating some special class that gets affordable housing while everyone else doesn't (maybe the lucky people win government lotteries or inherit rent controlled apartments).

Sure, the wealthy are buying to, but based on average debt levels, it’s mostly people who can’t afford it.

http://www.rbc.com/newsroom/reports/rbc-housing-affordabilit...

The Toronto and Vancouver markets are in territory that is shocking and in Vancouver's case, literally numerically impossible to sustain without constant infusions of external capital.

Well, no. The only reason they can expect the rent is because the tenant is unable to buy. If there were more housing that was within reach to be bought, then rents would go down, and the landlords would find themselves unable to rent profitably, and would thus sell the home at the market rate.

As with all affordable housing 'issues', the answer is to build more housing.

At the most successful, this proposal would leave rents the same, but lower house prices. Ie it would artificially give people rich enough to own a house an especially attractive high yielding instrument.

In practice, it will be even worse.

The default supply-demand dynamic doesn't generally apply to urban real estate. Supply is very slow to react to market changes, and is limited by all sorts of things that aren't price. In a lot of cities, prices (within reason) don't really affect supply at all.

First, building takes time and houses last a long time, so supply is unlikely to grow by more thana couple of % pa. Second, most of the space is taken and/or limited by planning, not price. Changing planning policies and improving transport is what actually gets a city with 250k houses to 300k.

Often, you'll find that people don't actually want the city to change/grow much and prevent it politically

The upshot is that is a supply-insensitive-to-demand market (the opposite of the cocaine market, economics teachers like for examples). If demand goes up, prices go up. Supply stays about the same. The inverse is that if price is held artificially low, this doesn't really dampen supply much.

Imagine manhatten house prices doubled tomorrow. How much extra housing do you think this would lead to?

All that said, this sounds like cheap politics. Developers complaining? That's probably a political point in amsterdam. It tick the do something box. Upper middle class people will get their new house a little cheaper (less competition). The new neighborhoods will be more middle class (and ethincally dutch), because owner occupiers tend to be these things. The rental market will be marginally tighter, as this grows the own/rent ratio a little.

A lot. Rising prices would encourage the development of non-NYC cities. As those cities developed, some portion of Manhattanites and those thinking of moving to Manhattan would choose to move to the new cities. As the new city develops further, Manhattan becomes that much less attractive as a place to work until such time as Manhattan RE prices again drop / fail to rise, and vacancy rates increase. Vacant units = extra housing.

Economic policy has left so much capital sitting around doing nothing that even marginal developments that are ultimately money losers are getting built everywhere.

Local governments ultimately are accountable to the people, and it’s appropriate for them to think about the impact on the civic space of these developments, that are often ultimately bad for the community.

Real estate is among the sketchiest of industries, and in the US at least almost all commercial projects are implicitly subsidized by the government. IMO anything that extracts value from developers is a good thing.

An interesting sidenote is this comment from one of the municipal administrators:

> It would be even better if we could also apply this rule to existing housing, but we think that requires the law to be changed.

Dutch source: https://nos.nl/artikel/2275897-amsterdam-wil-verbod-op-verhu...

The status quo seems like a given, but it's maintained by actions too.

We choose everyday not to change it, and this choice often produces outcomes that are counter productive.

To not change things is literally a conservative programme, and this usually serves the interests of the wealthy.

You also have to bear in mind that a significant chunk of properties in NL is owned by housing associations, this new rule only applies to individuals.

If the demand for houses from people who want to buy them to live in is greater than the supply of houses, nothing. The houses will still be built and sold, just to different people.

Here you posit that the global balance will be negative, but your supposition is mostly based on the assumption that regulating the free market has always net bad consequences. Which is a point of view which has been pushed VERY strongly in the last decades, but which only the most idealogical anarcho-capitalists can fully believe: try to have no regulation in, eg, food production, and people start dying.

As for this measure: we can all agree that it will depress prices for new homes, and increase prices for older homes. Is this going to be a net positive or negative for the middle class who wants to live in Amsterdam? It depends a lot on the price sensitivity of the construction of new homes. I suppose that planners in the city know more about this than me, and maybe you, and did their own projections. If they go on, we'll see the results.