Hacker News Reader

Comment by eptcyka | Hacker News Reader

It'd be perfectly reasonable to mandate that for one high value luxury house, a developer has to build a certain number of affordable homes. I guess it'd be the nimbys that would try and prohibit such legislation.

View on HN

That's called inclusionary zoning and exists in many large markets. There's no evidence that it broadly helps but it does further turn housing developme t into a political pawn.

https://www.mercatus.org/publications/urban-economics/inclus....

Projects that don't pencil don't get built. Constraints are costs and reduce the number of projects that make sense. There is only one way out of our housing crisis and it's removing constraints to construction. The biggest of those constraints right now is zoning law and the planning approval process that it creates.

Also, risk. It might "pencil" with 10% profit, but have risks approaching ~20% of total. Need to be reasonably sure, or what is the point?

It is unreasonable to mandate, as it invites unnecessary corruption and bureaucracy into what is and is not affordable (specifically the location aspect of it).

The only thing that should happen, if the goal is to lower prices, is increase supply and/or lower demand. The supply can be increased by simply changing zoning to allow for much denser residences.

If there’s a shortage of luxury housing. The wealthier demographics will buy cheaper housing stock displacing middle and low income. This is what happened in California.

Exactly, if you banned car companies from making more than 100,000 cars a year, you'd soon find that only rich people owned cars and all manufactured cars were luxury cars.

Then if you banned them from making luxury cars you'd still find that the rich bought all the new cars.

The fundamental fix is let car companies build more cars.

These are the types of regulations that backfire with unintended consequences. Off the top of my head you're going to probably reduce the amount of home builders off the bat. Even if its just upper-end builders, less options at the top of the market will cause high end price increases and then buying down the ladder ultimately raising the price for all housing.

This is way more complicated than you think. How do you define what a luxury house is, how do you define an affordable house, can the affordable house be sold to anyone, where does the affordable house need to be built?

Or we could simply make it legal and cheaper to build denser housing.

maybe I'm missing the big picture here, but I don't see why it's actually desirable to have a wide range of incomes within a specific neighborhood. poor people can't afford to shop at {expensive grocery store} or dine at {fancy restaurant}. and wealthy people generally don't want to shop or eat at the places their poor neighbors could afford. if you "urban plan" them into the same neighborhood, now you need two (or more) tiers of every type of business to serve all the residents. at best, everyone has fewer suitable choices of each. at worst (and more realistically imo), most of the businesses continue to serve the wealthier residents, and the less wealthy need to travel away from their "affordable home" to actually get their needs met.

There's a big project in North Cambridge near the city line. The only easily accessible (i.e. walkable) supermarket is a... Whole Foods. Though that's probably the most common chain in Cambridge as a whole to be honest.

But with or without specific affordable housing areas do gentrify and long-term residents don't necessarily like it even if it results in a "better"/safer/etc. neighborhood.

Because you need people to fill a wide variety of jobs and roles, like teaching, transportation, retail, food service, sanitation, etc. that can’t be done remotely. Unless you are planning for those jobs to be equally lucrative as CEO of Megacorp, you can’t build a functional society without people from various socioeconomic strata. Some neighborhoods can get by with shoving off people in those roles to nearby locations, but commuting time and expense is a limiting factor.

I'm not proposing an entire city inhabited by a single income bracket. I'm talking about neighborhoods as much smaller areas, as a rough definition "all the places I can walk to in 10-15 minutes".

I think I see your point though. at a high level, the neighborhood composition could be optimized for everyone to walk to work (wide range of incomes), or for everyone to walk to everything outside work (narrow range of incomes), but not both. or there's the US suburb approach where no one can walk to anything.

imo, assuming you're reasonably connected to work by transit, quality of life maximized by the latter arrangement (homogeneous incomes at the lowest level of organization). even if it's a little inconvenient, I will figure out how to get to work everyday. outside of work, a little inconvenience is the difference between doing or not doing all kinds of spontaneous activities.

You’re forcing private businesses to take on contracts that they may not want. Totally unreasonable.

The only way to do this is to zone things certain ways. For instance, pass a law that says any building in a certain area needs to be a certain height and contain n% affordable units.

> You’re forcing private businesses to take on contracts that they may not want. Totally unreasonable.

Regardless of how you feel about this, it can and does happen all the time. New residential highrises in Manhattan don't get approved unless they have a percentage of low-income units.

Indeed it happens all the time, especially in the NIMBYest of places (e.g., CA and NY). The results speak for themselves.

Are new residential high-rises getting built in Manhattan at a rate which is commensurate with demand and keeping prices stable? According to Redfin[0], housing prices there are up 12.9% YoY, exceeding general inflation and showing that the rate of construction is too low.

In CA, we've added additional burdens onto affordable housing which makes them more expensive than market rate housing. A report from UC Berkeley[1] says that regulatory constraints make 'affordable' units 7% more expensive to build than market-rate units. And of course CA has also made market-rate units more expensive to construct, further exacerbating the crisis[2].

This is unsustainable. On our current trajectory we will either needlessly sprawl our way into occupying all unincorporated land (because there's no Planning Department) in the entire country or we'll have tens of millions of people living in tents and camper vans.

[0] - https://www.redfin.com/city/35948/NY/Manhattan/housing-marke...

[1] - https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/the-co...

[2] - https://www.builderonline.com/land/local-markets/californias...

I said that’s the better option in my comment. Then you aren’t forcing anything. Just adding levels to the project. But forcing other developments is the issue.

Helping people by lottery is terrible. Ten affordable homes are built when 1000 are needed. Those ten get all the benefits, everyone else gets nothing.

Or we could invest in better high density housing and more mass transit and get rid of the lottery nonsense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com