Hacker News Reader

Comment by nautilius | Hacker News Reader

It's price gouging because existing landlords and home owners can control the supply side and prevent growing competition through zoning laws that would balance the market.

View on HN

Renters are allowed to vote too. Wouldn't that kind of control only be possible if the number of homeowners and landlords outnumbered the number of renters in a location? In which case it is just majority rule, which doesn't sound so conspiratorial.

'Majority rule' doesn't imply fair or good. Would you find it a cause worthy of your support to repeal men's voting rights if the 50.7% of the population in the U.S. who are women are for it? Much more extreme examples come to mind, but you get my point.

There's even a snappy quote: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." James Bovard

Sure - the suffix to "majority rule" is commonly "and minority rights". But my point wasn't even that majority rule is ideal, but simply that it is an accepted system in our society for resolving disparate viewpoints on governance. The important point I was trying to make is that there isn't some shadowy system for how landlords can control zoning - it is merely that they exercise their right to vote their conscience.

> but simply that it is an accepted system in our society for resolving disparate viewpoints on governance.

But it is not, as my example shows. There's a lot more to it. That's the entire point.

> that there isn't some shadowy system for how landlords can control zoning

I don't think anyone is arguing it is in any way shadowy, it's done very openly. There is sufficient discussion in the media about the practice of voting in the US, so I will not repeat that.

Also, take the Bay Area as an example - how large would you guess is the fraction of immigrants working in Tech? And mind you, even a green card does not allow you to vote. All of these people are excluded from the process.

Ironic, if you think about how this whole country started on 'no taxation without representation'.

In fact, unless their landlord resides in the same governing region, the renters are the only ones allowed to vote, on a housing unit by housing unit basis. This is more or less what I was arguing. 70% of residents in NYC are renters. The renters have it within their power to vote in their own interests, but they do not. Instead, more often than not, they support politicians who oppose policies that would produce more housing, and favor homeowners and the lucky few renters who already rent housing that is ideal for them.

I'm sure it's ultimately the Kochs' fault, or whoever. But at some point I really feel like there should be an element of personal responsibility to educate yourself about the forces that affect your economic wellbeing, and of those whose interests you nominally have at heart. If such a large share of renters can't do that . . . well, ideally we should still build more housing, but it's tough as a homeowner to feel too bad about it.

I'd have more sympathy for this narrative if there were clear voting blocs in favor of building housing among renters and opposed among homeowners. For example, if there weren't so many anti-housing pro-renter public personalities. But it doesn't seem that such clear delineations actually exist. Please let me know if I'm wrong.

Building houses doesn't mean that they won't all be bought up by land owners to add to their rental offerings.

Generally home owners are pro regulation to avoid building larger stuff in their neighborhoods though. Zoning and Nimbyism are home owner driven.

Every time I see a project opposed in my neighborhood or within my city, this is my the local homeowner/neighborhood association. Not by a group of renters. There's also an endless amount of public consultation for every building that needs to be built.

Toronto.

On the other hand, do you really expect someone with a 1 year lease to show up for a public consultation that might only affect things a few years down the road? There might even be a bias in the sense that anyone who bothers going to those meetings are boomers[1] who are retired and have nothing to do.

[1] only half serious

I am not sure I follow: there are many anti-housing, and pro-rent public personalities (I did not know "pro-rent public personalities" is even thing) who oppose more supply side competition that would lead to lower prices, but somehow also support renters? Frankly, someone who is "anti-housing but pro-renter" sounds simply like a landlord?

PS: I am sure that's not what you intended, but I'd appreciate it if you avoided that condescending tone. My argument doesn't rely on your sympathy, and reframing an argument as narrative doesn't help either. It puts into doubt all good faith you may have in a discussion.

I'm thinking of the many voices on the left who oppose building more housing because it might change neighborhood character. I don't know what neck of the woods you live in but this group is quite vocal here in NYC. Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.

Also, my tone was not intended to be condescending. I wanted to be let know if I was wrong, genuinely. I am eager to update if there are other places where the renters are identifiably and largely YIMBY, because that would break some of my personal beliefs about the housing market. Any my lack of sympathy is for the narrative -- which I've heard many times before -- not you personally. I'm positive that you are great.

Landlord being financially stable have more time to organize as a group to do lobbying. And that's not even going into institutional landlords.

In my country, increased housing density, or new social housing builds, are routinely opposed by existing land/home owners in the area.

Whether it's because increased density would spoil their views, or make parking harder to find, or the social housing would bring in "undesirable elements" or lower their property value, the incumbents have a lot of reasons to oppose housing changes that would benefit society as a whole.

Allow me to introduce you to the acronym NIMBY[0]. Often found in newspapers with their arms crossed looking stern in front of a building site. And you'd be amazed at what they can oppose - kindergartens, schools, even playgrounds (as they increase noise, and there's a risk of balls coming over the fence!)

And planning laws that require authorities to consider submissions from residents are one of their best weapons - after all, it's typically the wealthier who can afford to own property, and so it's often the wealthier who can form groups that hire top tier lawyers to fight developments they're opposed to.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY

Reply on news.ycombinator.com