drscott ([personal profile] drscott) wrote2005-05-26 09:28 pm
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry

Counting Votes

While [livejournal.com profile] excessor is away for the evening to help count votes for the new ECR board, I'm just researching away.

If you're forced to rent in a high-cost area like SF or NYC, it turns out it can be demonstrated that most of the premium in house prices in areas like that is the result of extensive and capricious regulation of new construction. Typical projects take many more years, and result in far fewer units actually being built, than do projects in other areas. I'd suspected this was the case, but by doing a regression analysis on marginal price differences of houses with more or less land in various areas, this paper proves it.

Oh, and if you pay a really hefty sum for rent or can't even find a place without knowing someone, that's usually rent control at work. Economists are as certain of this as biologists are of evolution -- but the religious will still deny all the evidence as it suits them.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] furfairy.livejournal.com 2005-05-26 09:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Ahh excellent post! I was just thinking about these issues today. Rent control seems to be not an instrument of affordable housing, but moreso a means to exclude newcomers and those who haven't climbed the economic ladder. Both nimby-ism and rent control contribute to sprawl. Fairfield and Livermore would both still be small towns had the inner bay been allowed to develop reflecting the most economical use of the land.

[identity profile] dr-scott.livejournal.com 2005-05-27 12:42 am (UTC)(link)
It makes living cheaper for them's that's already there. Eventually it results in degraded housing, corrupt practices like "key money" and bribery, and loss of diversity as landlords seek only he best tenants -- after all, if you can only charge X and there are thousands of people willing to pay it, you can pick the handsome single man with the credit reports in hand over the couple who work menial jobs.

It's also true that NIMBY anti-growth measures led to sprawl across the SF region and the lengthy commutes people now complain about. Plus mass transit is that much less viable because high densities haven't been allowed down the Peninsula.

[identity profile] furfairy.livejournal.com 2005-05-27 07:20 am (UTC)(link)
Plus mass transit is that much less viable because high densities haven't been allowed down the Peninsula.

..not to mention Marin county and the east bay hills. It's pretty obscene that most of the hill country around Hayward, Castro Valley, out to Pleasanton remains ranch land, to say nothing of the range of rolling hills between Oakland and Moraga. I think regulation is also largely responsible for the emptied out urban cores across America. It seems whenever a developer wants to build something in Oakland or Berkeley they are beset with outrageous political demands to hire unqualified or expensive minority-owned contractors, provide low income housing, or other intrusive demands. Is there any wonder why Emeryville has so much development. It is interesting to note that Pixar threatened to leave Emeryvilled when the city council there tried to pull some of those stunts.

I think public transit is going to become more and more important as gasoline becomes more expensive. I'm not certain that peak oil is an acute issue. But the arguments against it are weaker than they are for it.

[identity profile] ciddyguy.livejournal.com 2005-05-26 10:55 pm (UTC)(link)
This article brings to mine something I've heard here about Seattle within the past year or so.

Seattle has become an overpriced city to live. Why? compare to what apartments are renting and housing costs, most of us don't make enough to properly cover the actual cost of living here.

Odd as it may seem with 1 bedrooms going for 650-850 a month on average, but the average wage is the last I heard several years ago was $30K a year. May be more like 32-35k now. When I priced my apartment at 30% of my budget back when I began working at my old job, $650 was it. I ended up paying more like 35% of my budget for the place im in now. Sadly, with the new job, I'm making $10 an hour to start so it means more than 35% of my income per month.

From what I've heard, despite the high rents in SF and the bay area in general, at least the average income is enough to compensate for the higher cost of living to soome extent.

But in the end, I do agree with the concensus of the report.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only