Your premise is right of course. But Isn’t the primary issue for RE that there are highly vested interests keeping supply restricted? I think it’s unfair to focus exclusively on the bystanders “voting against their interests” with their poor frameworking.
The family who bought a fancy house in a construction restricted suburb (with perhap…
Your premise is right of course. But Isn’t the primary issue for RE that there are highly vested interests keeping supply restricted? I think it’s unfair to focus exclusively on the bystanders “voting against their interests” with their poor frameworking.
The family who bought a fancy house in a construction restricted suburb (with perhaps limited physical capacity in its local schools) is a reasonable NIMBY protecting their investment. The rent-controlled apartment renter doesn’t care about average rents declining in NYC, they want to keep their cheap apartment!
I think it's useful to contrast RE supply restrictions with something like taxes. People generally seem to understand that the first order consequence of a tax cut will be more money in their pockets but that there will necessarily be an equivalent second order consequence of lower government spending on services which might be expected to completely offset that benefit.
RE supply restrictions are really complicated to think about. Ok, let's say you own a nice house in a desirable neighborhood. Allowing construction would likely be a windfall to you, because you can knock down your house and build a 20 unit apartment building on your lot. Schools? Well, the yuppies who move into one bedroom apartments will likely not have school aged kids and will pay a ton of property taxes. Or maybe it will bring in enough kids so that your district doesn't have to shut down your neighborhood school due to declining enrollment. And so on.
Anyway, that's why I'm more inclined to say this is likely a case of people not understanding the real consequences of what they are pushing for.
Your premise is right of course. But Isn’t the primary issue for RE that there are highly vested interests keeping supply restricted? I think it’s unfair to focus exclusively on the bystanders “voting against their interests” with their poor frameworking.
The family who bought a fancy house in a construction restricted suburb (with perhaps limited physical capacity in its local schools) is a reasonable NIMBY protecting their investment. The rent-controlled apartment renter doesn’t care about average rents declining in NYC, they want to keep their cheap apartment!
I think it's useful to contrast RE supply restrictions with something like taxes. People generally seem to understand that the first order consequence of a tax cut will be more money in their pockets but that there will necessarily be an equivalent second order consequence of lower government spending on services which might be expected to completely offset that benefit.
RE supply restrictions are really complicated to think about. Ok, let's say you own a nice house in a desirable neighborhood. Allowing construction would likely be a windfall to you, because you can knock down your house and build a 20 unit apartment building on your lot. Schools? Well, the yuppies who move into one bedroom apartments will likely not have school aged kids and will pay a ton of property taxes. Or maybe it will bring in enough kids so that your district doesn't have to shut down your neighborhood school due to declining enrollment. And so on.
Anyway, that's why I'm more inclined to say this is likely a case of people not understanding the real consequences of what they are pushing for.
Interesting — Thanks.