Why America is short 4M homes

nytimes.com

8 points·harambae··6 comments

I like the idea, but even with better funding availability, "missing middle" projects will struggle to get built. Accessibility requirements for elevators mean that the most profitable projects will be either single-family homes or 5-3 over 1 boxes. This isn't even to mention the local zoning and regulatory hurdles. Why go through the regulatory legwork for less than ten units if you could build a hundred?

I'm not very well informed, but couldn't we figure out how to improve loan availability for condos in 5-3 over 1's? I think that would make a much bigger impact.

Because we don’t build enough to meet demand?

Because the financialization of homes, plus the interests and insecurities of tens of millions of homeowners, create hellishly powerful incentives to restrict the supply of homes.

Everything else is just piddly details on exactly where & how & how much water is inevitably flowing downhill.

People don't need incentives to try and block projects; they do that on their own. NIMBYism only requires that someone not like change and that desire often prevails despite financial benefits of change.

So...did all Americans like change pre-1970, when America was building plenty of affordable new homes? I'm thinking "no".

And whatever sepia-toned tales of the quarter century from 1945 to 1970 are currently being told by right-wing folks, that was a period of enormous change.

(Yes, in philosophical theory, "NIMBYism only requires that someone not like change". But getting from there to "that desire often prevails", in the real world, requires the support of very large social, regulatory, and legal structures. You might want to talk with an old attorney in this area, or someone on a local zoning board.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com