Hacker News Reader

Comment by maehwasu | Hacker News Reader

It's frustrating because, as propaganda, it's been extremely effective.

If you're an opponent of increased housing supply in California, you can roll out that talking point whenever threatened. It's tested, emotionally resonant, and most people don't have the time to be explained why it's wrong.

Supporters of increased housing in CA need to come up with their own powerful rhetoric, rather than whining about the fact that their opponents' rhetoric works.

(Whining further that bad rhetoric shouldn't be allowed is even worse--we live in a democracy; you have to influence people; rhetoric matters.)

View on HN

I usually put it this way:

The wealthy are coming and they are going to take a house. If you build nice new condos, they’ll happily take them. But if you don’t, they’ll buy up run down duplexes, evict the tenants, and convert them into McMansions instead.

It's effective because there's a measure of truth in there, especially in California. Prop 13 will limit taxes on existing housing stock, so cities and counties will levy fees on new developments to make up for it. Additionally, the cost of labor in much of California is such that just building any structure is extremely expensive (to the extent that only luxury units will make any money for the developer).

Prop 13 allows a 2% increase a year. That's more than enough to keep up with inflation.

Housing price growth well exceeds inflation.

It is, in my experience, true. I live in an up and coming suburb of Detroit and every new apartment / condo building is incredibly skewed towards the high end.

In fact, a huge development project is going on in the downtown area currently. One of the requirements of the project was to set aside a certain percentage of the new units as affordable housing. When the developer was asked about the affordable housing at a city council meeting, they revealed they were targeting a price point of ~$1600/mo for a 1 bedroom. For context, the going rate in the city for a bedroom is $300-800/mo. There was no language specifying what exactly affordable housing so they can get away with it (something the city is working on for next time).

My point is, this is a real problem. You need to think about it and you need to actively prevent it in from happening in whatever legislation you put forward.

> I live in an up and coming suburb of Detroit and every new apartment / condo building is incredibly skewed towards the high end.

>new

And what happens to the old units? They are sold and rented to the non-super wealthy.

I also live in south east michigan and my neighborhood is undergoing gentrification, they are tearing down 1000 sq ft homes and replacing them with 3500 sq ft homes.

What is the problem? I couldn't fit my large family(and renters) in a 1000 sq foot home.

Old units in many places are frequently renovated and re-sold to upper-middle class and wealthy tenants. The end result is an erosion of housing stock for average and low-income residents.

But the said "upper-middle class and wealthy tenants" already bought the "new apartment / condo building" that were built in the first place.

It seems to me that opponents seem to think there is a phantom limitless pool of "upper-middle class" that buys up all the new high-end condo _and_ all the refurbished older units.

Logically speaking, this is not possible

There doesn't need to be a limitless supply. In many cities if buyers aren't found, property owners are content to leave them vacant. You can see this in the relatively higher rates of vacanies in condos compared to other kinds of housing.

Rhetoric matters much less than economic clout. Much of the "influence" you describe is from sustained marketing rather than through rhetoric. The rhetoric itself is almost irrelevant, in fact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com