In a perfect world with informed voters this would be the case. It is not. In America, you can get away with literally killing your constituents as long as you have the right party affiliation next to your name.
The real problem is-- this is a problem of a diffuse absence. There is, generally, no simple focused location to complain about, and the problem does not lend itself to a roll-up-our-sleeves-and-spend-some-money solution. Those are called "housing projects" and they are a tool of last resort.
In addition, this is a failed policy built on the shoulders of a failed transportation policy. Government is stuck on the developmental cul-de-sac of rubber tires and individual vehicles, and the housing crisis is intrinsically linked to this. The modern generation has demonstrated no profoundly increased enthusiasm for investment in mass transit, and instead prefer unproven technology fixes always just beyond the horizon.
Of course the early 20s demo is dominated by college students which has some positive but also negative effects. He found it was easy to meet boomers at rock concerts and poker tournaments but once he cracked the code of meeting people his own age he was told by townies that townies leave because they can’t afford the rent. It is one thing to move on to seek fame and fortune but if you’re going to be one of the people who construct and maintain housing (can’t outsource that work to India, won’t be replaced by LLMs) it is a step down to move to a blighted area where you can afford to live.
[1] shapeshifting lessons taught him how to be an ambivert like myself
More abundant housing would be better for society in general, in the long term. But it's definitely true that less abundant housing can be financially superior for existing landowners right now, I don't think anybody really disputes that.
Sure, but they are heavily correlated. Price changes in real estate are reflected in rental rates (not 1 to 1, but still reflected)
Also, many of those renters in each politician’s district would like to purchase a home in the same district if the prices came down enough, so the politicians should (in theory) be beholden to their interests, too.
Of course, in reality, real estate owners are a much more powerful (per capita) political force than renters are, so politicians are not automatically catering to the larger majority of their constituents that are not real estate owners.
The effect you're describing is not nothing, but I think you're overstating it. I'd rather see the homeless housed than see my property value go up by another 10k. It would be worth more in that case, market evaluation be damned.
Leftists in Ithaca have learned that high property taxes drive up the rent and voted down a bloated school budget because they realized that we all pay taxes.
Whether I get mugged while I'm walking home from the grocery store... that's real, and it's a function of whether there's affordable housing available.
Also, these are not independent variables. My house would be worth more if it were not in an area where you get mugged on the way home from the grocery store.
Wrong!!
Please get this right, because telling people they need to loose wealth to fix society is a horrible place to be in.
They own the land and the land will appreciate in value (unless your house as a shit location, but then you area poor-ass republican anyways, statistically speaking).
This is the great positive some outcome:
- Housing unit costs go down
- Land values go up
So long as it is economical to density by a greater ratio than the ratio land prices grow by, this works out.
I’m not sure how helpful a mental model of “shit location [of] poor-ass republicans” is: last I checked those suburban and exurban landholdings contribute a fair chunk to the state and county property tax bases. Though I’ll grant that I don’t know the nuances, and I don’t know how to think about how to tease out the housing component of urban-dwellers’ land-tax-related contributions, as distinct from those buildings’ commercial functions.
Anyway, your “shit” “poor-asses” certainly are able to muster political opposition to measures that devalue them, even if they are “poor-ass” relative to their, uh, “betters” like you. In fact, your “shit” “poor”s who have accepted an iffy location in order to invest in a home they can afford… those might be even more sensitive to losses affecting their life’s biggest investment, and more likely to think of it as the anchor of their financial security.
For that matter casually condescending attitudes like the one you display here seem to have a lot to do with those constituencies’ political potency, and their reflexive opposition to YIMBY sorts of ideas…
Probably not, but those people are not powerful enough on their own to stop it.
The dense suburbs are vastly more powerful. Once they realize densifying makes them richer, it's game-over.
> For that matter casually condescending attitudes like the one you display here seem to have a lot to do with those constituencies’ political potency, and their reflexive opposition to YIMBY sorts of ideas…
A lot of people say shit like this, but how can you look at the last 15 years and think that pandering and fake-magnanimity wins elections? I'll be honest in my condescension that exurbs are bad, thank you.
This is often the reality. Massive wealth inequality won't be fixed by making everyone billionaires, it'll be fixed by getting rid of billionaires
That thinking works if you don't feel any obligation to the future or society, which has been the direction of US consumer / libertarian culture for decades. The impacts are obvious. The public school I went to now has to bus students in from different neighborhoods because the housing is so expensive few young families can afford to live their. It's become for wealthy people aging in place and people all over the US and the world investing in real estate.
It's also a culture of fear, for the young and the old. People are scared and they worry, but they are blind to how much they really have. For the young they worry about not being able to afford a car and a house in their thirties. This was never really possible for everyone, and when it was the houses and the cars were so much less than we would consider normal today. It's a feeling that the present that you know well isn't as good as a rose colored past.
You can use leadership to do bad things, but you can also use leadership to do good things.
I don't think your parent said it was bad.
I personally think people should not work for a wage less than they need to buy the crappiest home in their town which would negate this need, but the lower-classes haven't developed enough self-esteem or entitlement for that.
and do what to prevent themselves from going homeless in the meantime?
In my neighborhood, I'm quite sure that the overwhelming majority of the population are either renters and owner's kids. The minority have control over their shelter, many of those aren't even shy about asking for cash to dodge taxes while collecting pensions and old age security, and it's disgusting. Renters make up a significant enough voting segment, but no matter what we're voting for people who actively try to screw us in order to create more wealth for the wealthy.
It's more common than not in my social circle that anyone under the age of 40 is renting from an individual who owns a house on the comically, needlessly large plots that make up the neighborhood.
I am of two minds about this. On the one hand, the polling says that members of every district are substantially more pro-housing than politicians believe they are. That's one of the points that I'm trying to make in this article: people in your district will reward pro-housing work and economic growth more than incubants believe they will.
On the other hand, 80% of the work we do at YIMBY Action is organizing visible constituencies in districts to incentivize politicians taking pro-housing positions. The phrase I always say is "politicians get to the heads of parades; we are building a parade."
And on a third hand, I do think we can build an ever-bigger parade by getting people who think they benefit from the status quo to realize they don't actually. Small businesses benefit from housing. Suburbanites complain that teachers can't afford to live in the school district and they're loosing people. etc etc etc. I think those arguments are permeating and softening a lot of housing-resistant districts.
Politicians are beholden to the members of their district, not would-be members. Sure, more affordable housing would benefit many people, but it wouldn't benefit the members of the district, particularly the wealthy and powerful, since more affordable housing is very nearly equivalent to real estate values decreasing (at the very least, as perceived by voters). Sure, renters would in theory benefit, but real estate prices aren't rental rates, and the renters have to move to capture the improvement in pricing, often outside of the district.
Essentially, the status quo of real estate pricing always increasing in a district serves everyone within the district well enough. Any change to that is a massive financial risk to property owners, so it will be vigorously opposed.