"Eat The Landlords" - housing reform partisans target Brooklyn Housing Court overnight

[SevenEleven]

Wow. How about you define "unearned capital" for the rest of us,

Lol. I'm renting my house out to a friend right now while house-sitting long-term for family and I'm basically getting paid above cost to pay for something. Capital extraction may be gained, but it certainly isn't "earned". You're not providing necessary labor or a vital service, you're manipulating a situation where you have power and the other has less power.

Note: throwing out a strawman about the estate tax does not assist your argument.

Lol, I suppose housing isn't a "vital service" now? And exercising your legal right to property is not "manipulating the system." You might as well say that people who exercise their right over a legal copyright are "manipulating the less powerful," or that someone who builds a house and then sells it has "taken advantage of their property rights to extort others." Ownership isn't theft.

My point about the estate tax followed logically from the complaints made in his post about "unearned" capital.

You aren't doing anything to "provide housing". A developer or a homebuilder actually engages on the labor and service level, therefore "earning" their capital. I understand the desire to morally justify something that benefits you at the expense of others, but crowing about how ungrateful the serfs are ain't it, man. You're using your wealth to purchase something you don't need in hopes of extracting more wealth from people who do have that need. It may not be legal theft, but I think you can do better than promoting predatory capitalism at the expense of more meritocratic variants. In fact, as a rather intelligent Berkeley man, I'd venture that you would benefit even more from a more meritocratic society than an extractory variant.

What you have described in the bold portion is, quite literally, the definition of investment. It is what farmers do when they plant more crops than they actually need, in the hopes that they will be able to sell the surplus. It is what venture capitalists do when they purchase commodities that they hope will appreciate in value. It is what companies do when they purchase intellectual property rights from other parties, and then use that copyright to produce products that are protected by property laws. It is the cornerstone of human innovation, capitalism, and economic progress.

You can demean it all you like, but don't think for a second that I feel the need to "justify" this beautiful aspect of human ingenuity. It requires no justification.

Uhh, lmao. I'm probably one of the most pro-market people here. If you can't see a significant difference in investing that hopes to win people's wants vs. investing to restrict people's access to actual needs, well, that is scary. Sorry, Dule, but daddy owning three houses is not human ingenuity.

If you think billionaires should be able to buy up the entire food supply and sell it for double the market value while people are starving to death in the streets, I don't know what to say.

Note: throwing out a strawman [...] does not assist your argument.

That isn't a strawman. I clearly elucidated that housing and food are both basic human needs. This is basically universally understood.

[Omega21]

If you think billionaires should be able to buy up the entire food supply and sell it for double the market value while people are starving to death in the streets, I don't know what to say.

Note: throwing out a strawman [...] does not assist your argument.

Nah man, working and saving to invest into tangible assets is just oppression of those challenged with financial literacy.

Now, working and living paycheck to paycheck without any motivation to invest while getting dat $1100 iPhone every year and paying for Disney+, Netflix and Prime while getting your Coffee to go at Starbucks is what you should strive to be.

*Note I support many social programs, such as 100% health coverage, since randomly getting cancer is not the same as not being able to own property because that person didn't make the required choices and sacrifices to achieve it.

[John Dule]

Wow. How about you define "unearned capital" for the rest of us,

Lol. I'm renting my house out to a friend right now while house-sitting long-term for family and I'm basically getting paid above cost to pay for something. Capital extraction may be gained, but it certainly isn't "earned". You're not providing necessary labor or a vital service, you're manipulating a situation where you have power and the other has less power.

Note: throwing out a strawman about the estate tax does not assist your argument.

Lol, I suppose housing isn't a "vital service" now? And exercising your legal right to property is not "manipulating the system." You might as well say that people who exercise their right over a legal copyright are "manipulating the less powerful," or that someone who builds a house and then sells it has "taken advantage of their property rights to extort others." Ownership isn't theft.

My point about the estate tax followed logically from the complaints made in his post about "unearned" capital.

You aren't doing anything to "provide housing". A developer or a homebuilder actually engages on the labor and service level, therefore "earning" their capital. I understand the desire to morally justify something that benefits you at the expense of others, but crowing about how ungrateful the serfs are ain't it, man. You're using your wealth to purchase something you don't need in hopes of extracting more wealth from people who do have that need. It may not be legal theft, but I think you can do better than promoting predatory capitalism at the expense of more meritocratic variants. In fact, as a rather intelligent Berkeley man, I'd venture that you would benefit even more from a more meritocratic society than an extractory variant.

What you have described in the bold portion is, quite literally, the definition of investment. It is what farmers do when they plant more crops than they actually need, in the hopes that they will be able to sell the surplus. It is what venture capitalists do when they purchase commodities that they hope will appreciate in value. It is what companies do when they purchase intellectual property rights from other parties, and then use that copyright to produce products that are protected by property laws. It is the cornerstone of human innovation, capitalism, and economic progress.

You can demean it all you like, but don't think for a second that I feel the need to "justify" this beautiful aspect of human ingenuity. It requires no justification.

Uhh, lmao. I'm probably one of the most pro-market people here. If you can't see a significant difference in investing that hopes to win people's wants vs. investing to restrict people's access to actual needs, well, that is scary. Sorry, Dule, but daddy owning three houses is not human ingenuity.

Literally nobody does this.

[SevenEleven]

Wow. How about you define "unearned capital" for the rest of us,

Lol. I'm renting my house out to a friend right now while house-sitting long-term for family and I'm basically getting paid above cost to pay for something. Capital extraction may be gained, but it certainly isn't "earned". You're not providing necessary labor or a vital service, you're manipulating a situation where you have power and the other has less power.

Note: throwing out a strawman about the estate tax does not assist your argument.

Lol, I suppose housing isn't a "vital service" now? And exercising your legal right to property is not "manipulating the system." You might as well say that people who exercise their right over a legal copyright are "manipulating the less powerful," or that someone who builds a house and then sells it has "taken advantage of their property rights to extort others." Ownership isn't theft.

My point about the estate tax followed logically from the complaints made in his post about "unearned" capital.

You aren't doing anything to "provide housing". A developer or a homebuilder actually engages on the labor and service level, therefore "earning" their capital. I understand the desire to morally justify something that benefits you at the expense of others, but crowing about how ungrateful the serfs are ain't it, man. You're using your wealth to purchase something you don't need in hopes of extracting more wealth from people who do have that need. It may not be legal theft, but I think you can do better than promoting predatory capitalism at the expense of more meritocratic variants. In fact, as a rather intelligent Berkeley man, I'd venture that you would benefit even more from a more meritocratic society than an extractory variant.

What you have described in the bold portion is, quite literally, the definition of investment. It is what farmers do when they plant more crops than they actually need, in the hopes that they will be able to sell the surplus. It is what venture capitalists do when they purchase commodities that they hope will appreciate in value. It is what companies do when they purchase intellectual property rights from other parties, and then use that copyright to produce products that are protected by property laws. It is the cornerstone of human innovation, capitalism, and economic progress.

You can demean it all you like, but don't think for a second that I feel the need to "justify" this beautiful aspect of human ingenuity. It requires no justification.

Uhh, lmao. I'm probably one of the most pro-market people here. If you can't see a significant difference in investing that hopes to win people's wants vs. investing to restrict people's access to actual needs, well, that is scary. Sorry, Dule, but daddy owning three houses is not human ingenuity.

Literally nobody does this.

Then why do you have a vacant home sitting there while people are sleeping in parks and under bridges?

[T'Chenka]

Imagine tipping your landlord, LMAO.

[SevenEleven]

Then why do you have a vacant home sitting there while people are sleeping in parks and under bridges?

Just going to guess that it has a lot to do with whatever reasons you would give for not inviting any of them into your spare rooms.

Completely equivalent.

[John Dule]

Then why do you have a vacant home sitting there while people are sleeping in parks and under bridges?

Two reasons:

1) We're currently renovating the place-- not to meet any government housing standards, but just because we'd like to make it nicer. We pulled up the wall-to-wall carpeting to expose the hardwood floors, painted the whole interior, refloored the kitchen with nice linoleum, built a new fence, cleaned the stairs, installed new garage doors, bought a new stove, and sold most of the old furniture. However, we still need to clean the basement, fix up the rec room, and possibly construct some retaining walls in the backyard to stop the hill from sliding (it isn't tall enough to be dangerous, but the constant trickle of dirt is a nuisance). My granddad bought this house after he came home from the war and raised my dad there, so it has a good deal of sentimental value to my family. We'd like to see it in really good condition before renting it out, hopefully to a young couple with kids.

2) Imagine, if you will, trying to enter into a contract with someone. You will provide a service for them in exchange for a monthly fee. However, given recent circumstances, they know that once the contract is signed they can just start paying you 20% of the agreed-upon fee-- and if you complain, they can rip up the contract and decide not to pay you anything. They also know that in this situation, you're not legally able to stop providing them with that service. First you must take them to court-- a drawn-out process that will cost you time, money, and energy. During this time, they can continue using the service you're providing in whatever way they see fit. They can destroy the many features your service possesses, thus significantly lowering the value of your investment. Tell me-- in this situation, would you be eager to enter into such a contract? Would you try to sign as quickly as possible? Or would you try to shop around for trustworthy people with whom to enter into such a contract?

But no, you're right. Landlords are evil, and they only let properties sit empty because they hate poor people and want to see them freeze to death on the streets. They purchase land to exploit people, and they love letting their assets sit idle while millions go homeless.

[SevenEleven]

But no, you're right. Landlords are evil, and they only let properties sit empty because they hate poor people and want to see them freeze to death on the streets.

I don't believe I said anything like that. Really, all I wanted to do here was demonstrate that you're not the victim here and you don't have the moral high ground. If you think letting a home sit vacant for years is "an act of human ingenuity", frankly, you're not the brightest bulb to fall out of the socket. I'm actually shocked you had the nerve to declare someone else's attitude "feudalistic". I'm not sure I've ever seen you so frazzled.

All you really needed to say here was "yeah, we inherited a nice home from our family and we appreciate it. This home has sentimental value and we hope to see it taken care of. This windfall will someday benefit me and being able to approach the situation with some degree of certainty would benefit both my family and our potential tenants."

Personally, I vote against rent control every time it shows up on the ballot. But I can also do such without taking a sanctimonious attitude toward those less fortunate. If more people shared your attitude, it would provoke an equal and opposite reaction. And guess what? You're outnumbered.

[John Dule]

I don't believe I said anything like that. Really, all I wanted to do here was demonstrate that you're not the victim here and you don't have the moral high ground. If you think letting a home sit vacant for years is "an act of human ingenuity", frankly, you're not the brightest bulb to fall out of the socket. I'm actually shocked you had the nerve to declare someone else's attitude "feudalistic". I'm not sure I've ever seen you so frazzled.

Who has the moral high ground then? Actually, never mind. I don't care about leftist hot takes on morality. My point was that you were demeaning the instinct to invest, which-- far from being a negative trait-- is what has made the world what it is today. Letting a house sit vacant has nothing to do with that; it's just a sad byproduct of left-wing policies and the havoc they wreak upon ordinary people's lives.

All you really needed to say here was "yeah, we inherited a nice home from our family and we appreciate it. This home has sentimental value and we hope to see it taken care of. This windfall will someday benefit me and being able to approach the situation with some degree of certainty would benefit both my family and our potential tenants."

Ok, if you prefer brevity I'll start including a TL;DR at the end of my posts.

Personally, I vote against rent control every time it shows up on the ballot. But I can also do such without taking a sanctimonious attitude toward those less fortunate.

The sooner the left realizes that the right wants to help the less fortunate too (and is actually better at it), the sooner we can have honest conversations about these issues. I have seen no such desire for reconciliation in this thread, however.

If more people shared your attitude, it would provoke an equal and opposite reaction. And guess what? You're outnumbered.

Ah, the good old "strength in numbers" approach again. Once you've lost an argument, it always feels good to resort to sheer numbers to obtain your desired outcome. That's why the mob must be resisted at all costs.

[AltWorlder]

https://twitter.com/dasharez0ne/status/1244778434120822785

[SevenEleven]

I don't believe I said anything like that. Really, all I wanted to do here was demonstrate that you're not the victim here and you don't have the moral high ground. If you think letting a home sit vacant for years is "an act of human ingenuity", frankly, you're not the brightest bulb to fall out of the socket. I'm actually shocked you had the nerve to declare someone else's attitude "feudalistic". I'm not sure I've ever seen you so frazzled.

Who has the moral high ground then? Actually, never mind. I don't care about leftist hot takes on morality. My point was that you were demeaning the instinct to invest, which-- far from being a negative trait-- is what has made the world what it is today. Letting a house sit vacant has nothing to do with that; it's just a sad byproduct of left-wing policies and the havoc they wreak upon ordinary people's lives.

I did no such thing. I encourage people to make sound investments. Your actual words were that NO ONE has been hurt more than landlords during this pandemic. Excuse me if I have much greater concern for the lives and businesses that have been lost than whether or not some guy gets a large enough check from whoever occupies his fifth home.

All you really needed to say here was "yeah, we inherited a nice home from our family and we appreciate it. This home has sentimental value and we hope to see it taken care of. This windfall will someday benefit me and being able to approach the situation with some degree of certainty would benefit both my family and our potential tenants."

Ok, if you prefer brevity I'll start including a TL;DR at the end of my posts.

Or, you know, you could be up front about what you're doing.

Personally, I vote against rent control every time it shows up on the ballot. But I can also do such without taking a sanctimonious attitude toward those less fortunate.

The sooner the left realizes that the right wants to help the less fortunate too (and is actually better at it), the sooner we can have honest conversations about these issues. I have seen no such desire for reconciliation in this thread, however.

lol.

If more people shared your attitude, it would provoke an equal and opposite reaction. And guess what? You're outnumbered.

Ah, the good old "strength in numbers" approach again. Once you've lost an argument, it always feels good to resort to sheer numbers to obtain your desired outcome. That's why the mob must be resisted at all costs.

I don't think I'm losing an argument to the man who said:

Landlords-- who, by the way, are not generally very wealthy-- are suffering more from this virus than any other demographic group.

You can open up any history book if you'd like to learn about what happens to the "not generally wealthy" (lol) when social stability rapidly declines.

[Devout Centrist]

1. So just to be clear, you support this? And that means that housing isn't a human right, yes?

2. This is like saying "there's no incentive for car manufacturers to build cars that poor and working class people can buy." It just isn't true. So long as there is a reasonable amount of market demand for a product (housing) to be offered at a certain price, that demand will be met-- unless the government mucks up the system.

3. How, then, are the units allocated?

4. Again, this defeats the concept of housing as a human right. You are not charged a fee for exercising your right to free speech, or for your right to vote. How is this "right" different from those others, in your mind?

5. I don't have time to explain the basics of rhetorical arguments to you; just respond to what I said without deliberately misinterpreting it.

6. I still cannot wrap my head around why you're promoting this idea, then. If you're going to make housing a human right, you can't charge rent. If you're going to charge rent anyway, then why not just allow the market to provide this housing by scrapping the zoning regulations and HOAs that are preventing these kinds of units from being built? You are using the government to solve a problem that the government caused in the first place. It's unbelievably wasteful and pointless.

7. You're going to need that level of government investment when you declare that housing is a human right!

1. I’m not sure where you got this idea that ‘Right = free’. We should aim to provide everyone with safe and comfortable housing. That does not mean everyone, no matter their income. will have access to completely free housing.

2. There are a variety of factors that push developers to construct more expensive housing. First, land is an expensive commodity in a lot of major cities. This creates high startup costs for the developers. Second, developers can earn much more for properties devoted to richer tenants.

Say you’re a developer in San Francisco. Your fixed costs are high and you have a lot of wealthy new tenants moving into town. Where’s the incentive to produce affordable housing?

Oh, and also, the poor don’t normally buy new cars. There is a big market for used cars in this country for a reason.

3. A certain percentage of units are allocated to working families and the poor. The rest are open to the general public and applications are accepted the same as any other housing development.

4. Surely you know the difference between a positive right and a negative right. Negative rights protect you from state power. You have the right to worship freely, to speak freely, etc. You are protected from attempts by the state to diminish your right to do those things.

Positive rights grant you the right to receive some sort of benefit. This is what people mean when they say ‘healthcare is a right’. It does not, however, mean that the benefit comes at no cost to those that receive it. Taxes are needed to pay for universal healthcare, and oftentimes the beneficiary of state-run healthcare incurs some sort of tax. Similarly, while public housing may be at greatly reduced cost to the poor and working families, it is not free to all those that receive it.

5. Lmao. No. We should seek to build public housing that is durable, sustainable, and provides safe living conditions for its residents.

6. Because there’s no incentive to build affordable housing! Even absent HOA’s, zoning laws, etc, there still is much more marginal benefit to build units to house richer tenants. Those that would build for the poor are, uh, unscrupulous to say the least.

The free market does not automatically provide the best outcome, particularly if there are market failures associated with providing a particular good or service in a certain market.

7. To put thousands of landlords out of business, in every major metropolitan area of the country, would require investment on the order of trillions of dollars.

[GP270watch]

 Some of the main factors causing the luxury development boom are wealth inequality, inadequate taxation policy, money laundering and the illicit flight of capitol.

 So much property is bought to hide/park money that is taken from elsewhere. You see this in cities like London, Miami, NYC.

 Many housing developments in The United States are ancient. They were the result of WPA projects and post WWII baby boom where the country desperately needed housing and the Government led with private partnership created it. Most of these haven't been significantly funded for upkeep since the 1970's and 1980s.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

The free market does not automatically provide the best outcome, particularly if there are market failures associated with providing a particular good or service in a certain market.

Yeah, but it can--and when it can, it should.

It isn't like poor people across the developed world are unable to find housing. This is a situation limited to a number of overregulated, highly desirable cities mostly in the Anglosphere. There are so many examples of housing markets in Japan, the non-coastal United States, and much of continental Europe with limited public housing but plenty of affordable housing. We can copy their best practices. It isn't that complicated.

[GP270watch]

dule, have you ever been a tenant? just wondering

Imagine arguing for a return to tenements in the middle of a pandemic.

The free market does not automatically provide the best outcome, particularly if there are market failures associated with providing a particular good or service in a certain market.

Yeah, but it can--and when it can, it should.

It isn't like poor people across the developed world are unable to find housing. This is a situation limited to a number of overregulated, highly desirable cities mostly in the Anglosphere. There are so many examples of housing markets in Japan, the non-coastal United States, and much of continental Europe with limited public housing but plenty of affordable housing. We can copy their best practices. It isn't that complicated.

Housing in Japan is highly regulated by the Japanese government. Are you arguing we should copy this?

[John Dule]

dule, have you ever been a tenant? just wondering

Imagine arguing for a return to tenements in the middle of a pandemic.

Fair enough. I expect that you'll advocate for eliminating public transportation like trains, subways, and buses in that case. You know, in order to avoid looking like a hypocrite.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

The free market does not automatically provide the best outcome, particularly if there are market failures associated with providing a particular good or service in a certain market.

Yeah, but it can--and when it can, it should.

It isn't like poor people across the developed world are unable to find housing. This is a situation limited to a number of overregulated, highly desirable cities mostly in the Anglosphere. There are so many examples of housing markets in Japan, the non-coastal United States, and much of continental Europe with limited public housing but plenty of affordable housing. We can copy their best practices. It isn't that complicated.

Housing in Japan is highly regulated by the Japanese government. Are you arguing we should copy this?

Not quite. Zoning is generally unrestrictive and set at the national level, property rights are extremely strong, and public housing is pretty minimal. The broader point is that there are many housing markets where the private sector really does provide affordable housing for the masses--Japan included--and we can model ourselves on them if we choose to.

[GP270watch]

dule, have you ever been a tenant? just wondering

Imagine arguing for a return to tenements in the middle of a pandemic.

Fair enough. I expect that you'll advocate for eliminating public transportation like trains, subways, and buses in that case. You know, in order to avoid looking like a hypocrite.

 https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/tenements

 Read bro.

[GP270watch]

The free market does not automatically provide the best outcome, particularly if there are market failures associated with providing a particular good or service in a certain market.

Yeah, but it can--and when it can, it should.

It isn't like poor people across the developed world are unable to find housing. This is a situation limited to a number of overregulated, highly desirable cities mostly in the Anglosphere. There are so many examples of housing markets in Japan, the non-coastal United States, and much of continental Europe with limited public housing but plenty of affordable housing. We can copy their best practices. It isn't that complicated.

Housing in Japan is highly regulated by the Japanese government. Are you arguing we should copy this?

Not quite. Zoning is generally unrestrictive and set at the national level, property rights are extremely strong, and public housing is pretty minimal. The broader point is that there are many housing markets where the private sector really does provide affordable housing for the masses--Japan included--and we can model ourselves on them if we choose to.

 This isn't true at all. Japan has more regulation in the types of building you can build, their max size, etc. The Japanese government subsidizes a great deal of housing and private companies used to for their workers as well. In Japan it is traditional and not frowned upon to live in multi-generational housing. Where in The United States free market manipulators want to create debt and push consumers into buying homes.

Property rights are so strong the Japanese government regulates Airbnb. Houses/housing has planned obsolescence and becomes worthless after 25-30 years, land is a different story. I have no idea where you're getting your info about Japan from.

[Devout Centrist]

The free market does not automatically provide the best outcome, particularly if there are market failures associated with providing a particular good or service in a certain market.

Yeah, but it can--and when it can, it should.

It isn't like poor people across the developed world are unable to find housing. This is a situation limited to a number of overregulated, highly desirable cities mostly in the Anglosphere. There are so many examples of housing markets in Japan, the non-coastal United States, and much of continental Europe with limited public housing but plenty of affordable housing. We can copy their best practices. It isn't that complicated.

Weren't you the one who said the UK should get rid of the green belt and should relocate Heathrow to outside Oxford? Not sure we should trust your takes on housing policy...

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

The free market does not automatically provide the best outcome, particularly if there are market failures associated with providing a particular good or service in a certain market.

Yeah, but it can--and when it can, it should.

It isn't like poor people across the developed world are unable to find housing. This is a situation limited to a number of overregulated, highly desirable cities mostly in the Anglosphere. There are so many examples of housing markets in Japan, the non-coastal United States, and much of continental Europe with limited public housing but plenty of affordable housing. We can copy their best practices. It isn't that complicated.

Weren't you the one who advocated for getting rid of the green belt and relocating Heathrow to outside Oxford? Not sure we should trust your takes on housing policy...

Yep. And I stand by it. There's overwhelming evidence that all the green belt has done is push development further into the home counties, lengthening commutes and exacerbating sprawl. And greenfield airports are sometimes the only solution for cities that have boxed in their outdated airports. Or should Denver International and Chek Lap Kok never have been built?

[SevenEleven]

The free market does not automatically provide the best outcome, particularly if there are market failures associated with providing a particular good or service in a certain market.

Yeah, but it can--and when it can, it should.

It isn't like poor people across the developed world are unable to find housing. This is a situation limited to a number of overregulated, highly desirable cities mostly in the Anglosphere. There are so many examples of housing markets in Japan, the non-coastal United States, and much of continental Europe with limited public housing but plenty of affordable housing. We can copy their best practices. It isn't that complicated.

I agree that we need serious zoning reform in this state but I think you're overestimating the impact this would have overall. At least with regards to SF, LA, and NYC metros, there are significant geographic limitations involved. The potential for major earthquakes in California significantly limits the ability to build upward, and in order to do this you would have to find a way to significantly change the way we are able to use eminent domain. Sure, you could bulldoze my whole block and build a ten-story complex there but you probably aren't getting much more than that.

It's a complex problem that requires complex solutions.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

The free market does not automatically provide the best outcome, particularly if there are market failures associated with providing a particular good or service in a certain market.

Yeah, but it can--and when it can, it should.

It isn't like poor people across the developed world are unable to find housing. This is a situation limited to a number of overregulated, highly desirable cities mostly in the Anglosphere. There are so many examples of housing markets in Japan, the non-coastal United States, and much of continental Europe with limited public housing but plenty of affordable housing. We can copy their best practices. It isn't that complicated.

Housing in Japan is highly regulated by the Japanese government. Are you arguing we should copy this?

Not quite. Zoning is generally unrestrictive and set at the national level, property rights are extremely strong, and public housing is pretty minimal. The broader point is that there are many housing markets where the private sector really does provide affordable housing for the masses--Japan included--and we can model ourselves on them if we choose to.

 This isn't true at all. Japan has more regulation in the types of building you can build, their max size, etc. The Japanese government subsidizes a great deal of housing and private companies used to for their workers as well. In Japan it is traditional and not frowned upon to live in multi-generational housing. Where in The United States free market manipulators want to create debt and push consumers into buying homes.

Property rights are so strong the Japanese government regulates Airbnb. Houses/housing has planned obsolescence and becomes worthless after 25-30 years, land is a different story. I have no idea where you're getting your info about Japan from.

Nah. By comparison to the United States, zoning policy and regulation in Japan is extremely lax. In the United States, it's normal for local municipalities to have absolute control over zoning and implement parking minimums, setbacks, minimum square footage requirements, single family requirements, and so on essentially allowing only detached McMansions with oversized garages (or nothing) to be built. Not exactly the stuff affordability is made of.

By contrast, the national government in Japan sets general zoning (industrial, residential, etc.) and maximum floor area requirement standards but then allow landowners to build whatever housing they want. This produces dense, affordable, and privately owned housing so extensive that an average family can live in central Tokyo. Good luck trying that in the Bay Area. Japan isn't perfect but it's an example of a place we can adopt some practices from to make our housing market work better.

[Dr. MB]

The free market does not automatically provide the best outcome, particularly if there are market failures associated with providing a particular good or service in a certain market.

Yeah, but it can--and when it can, it should.

It isn't like poor people across the developed world are unable to find housing. This is a situation limited to a number of overregulated, highly desirable cities mostly in the Anglosphere. There are so many examples of housing markets in Japan, the non-coastal United States, and much of continental Europe with limited public housing but plenty of affordable housing. We can copy their best practices. It isn't that complicated.

Weren't you the one who advocated for getting rid of the green belt and relocating Heathrow to outside Oxford? Not sure we should trust your takes on housing policy...

Yep. And I stand by it. There's overwhelming evidence that all the green belt has done is push development further into the home counties, lengthening commutes and exacerbating sprawl. And greenfield airports are sometimes the only solution for cities that have boxed in their outdated airports. Or should Denver International and Chek Lap Kok never have been built?

Denver shouldn’t have been built because it’s the headquarters of the Satanist new world order  but that’s beside the point.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

The free market does not automatically provide the best outcome, particularly if there are market failures associated with providing a particular good or service in a certain market.

Yeah, but it can--and when it can, it should.

It isn't like poor people across the developed world are unable to find housing. This is a situation limited to a number of overregulated, highly desirable cities mostly in the Anglosphere. There are so many examples of housing markets in Japan, the non-coastal United States, and much of continental Europe with limited public housing but plenty of affordable housing. We can copy their best practices. It isn't that complicated.

I agree that we need serious zoning reform in this state but I think you're overestimating the impact this would have overall. At least with regards to SF, LA, and NYC metros, there are significant geographic limitations involved. The potential for major earthquakes in California significantly limits the ability to build upward, and in order to do this you would have to find a way to significantly change the way we are able to use eminent domain. Sure, you could bulldoze my whole block and build a ten-story complex there but you probably aren't getting much more than that.

It's a complex problem that requires complex solutions.

Most of the land area in LA, the Bay Area, and Greater NYC is mostly single family homes. If you made it possible to convert ~10 percent of them to 20 unit apartment buildings you'd basically double the regional housing stock. NYC is literally the biggest metro area by footprint in the world, yet somehow plenty of other cities fit in far, far more people. I think this is a defeatist line of thinking that doesn't acknowledge just how underbuilt American cities are.