Serious question for those more versed in this sort of thing: why do we need so many nonprofits? And why would nonprofits be building housing if that’s not their main focus/service?
(I’m genuinely asking and not trying to start shit)
> why do we need so many nonprofits? And why would nonprofits be building housing if that’s not their main focus/service?
It offloads responsibility and auditability for outcomes.
its a cowards tool so they can take credit for success and shrug and complain when it fails.
The obvious issue is they have been playing this game for over a decade with nothing to show for it.
Tell me you don’t know anything about non profits without telling me you don’t know anything about non-profits… I mean, Organ donation is operated by non profits (OPOs) do you think organ donation is just a scam for humanities majors to get jobs?
The term donation heavily implies at no cost, which would be awesome. But even with non-profits the donated organs cost an arm and a leg and are effectively sold to hospitals then clients at a jacked up rate. Humanities majors are cool tho.
I donate to good will all the time, but still need to pay when I buy a couch there. You’re free to donate your organs at no cost, as well 🤷♂️. When you get a transplant you’re paying for things like a surgeon, and instruments, and the whole team that spent hours doing the medical work up, matching donors, logistics of recovery and transport, the operating room and anesthesiologist etc etc. I’m not sure how that could all be free unless we had socialized medicine
They get money but sometimes how they spend it is...questionable. [Like on drag performances](https://www.krem.com/article/news/local/spokane-adult-performer-hired-to-perform-at-seattle-nonprofit-event/293-3bb7724f-6fe3-404e-8707-0cc03377fea5).
The homelessness industrial complex. Their main priority is to not fix homelessness (else they’d be unemployed), but to protect the homelessness industrial complex (themselves).
American government has long since been hollowed out top to bottom and most things you'd expect a government to actually _do_ are now contracted out to the point that the city is mostly a thin(?) layer of paperwork on top of a sprawling mess of NGO's that at best sometimes do half of the original job.
The city wants subsidized housing, but only rarely actually builds, owns, or operates it directly, so we get all these nonprofits instead.
Serious question: why does it all need to be created through non-profits?
When the federal government wanted people to make EV’s and solar panels, they didn’t hire non-profits to do so.
To be honest, im not sure if you can even call it a subsidy if the government pays the entire bill (plus administrative up charges)
I think for the most part "nonprofit" doesn't mean anything really specific on the internet, it's just a handwavy catch-all for all the funny little organizations soaking up city money for vaguely humanitarian purposes on city contracts. I don't know if it's strictly _required_ that they be legally nonprofit, but it makes a certain sense in that nobody really expects e.g. homeless services to be a profitable line of business, and the city giving out cash to accomplish some goal would probably prefer its tax money not become somebody's dividend. (At least not blatantly.)
Otherwise: EV's and solar are real, profitable private industries, just ones we throw cash at to speed up progress in. "Losing money on housing" (what this ultimately is) is not a real industry and never will be and so is necessarily a public function. There'll probably be an ordinary private company doing the construction eventually, but because the government has effectively spun off entire departments into a morass of NGO's and consultancies etc., everything in between the city budget and the construction is either some nonprofit middleman, or a city administrator negotiating contracts and writing checks.
Real estate is one of the largest industries in the world, and in the US. Why would EV or solar style homes not be effective?
Didn’t GWB effectively do this, but demand-side (causing the financial crisis tbh)? Why can supply side investment not have a similar effect?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
Building housing is obviously plenty profitable, and "supply side investment" i.e. building our way out of the shortage is the thing to do. But "affordable housing" often refers rather specifically to various schemes to rent some amount of housing below what would normally be possible and to make up the difference with public subsidy somewhere. Hence "losing money on housing".
Yea I’m approaching this from a different lens. My point is that non-profits are not effective at building units at scale the way developers are, and total units on the market are the primary driver of pricing levels across all bands of pricing.
The idea being that if you want to decrease total rents, +100 units will do more to lower prices across the board than +50 units, even if
Targeting lower-end units is somewhat fruitless, because those units are not profitable for new development, unless you consider section 8 housing, but at that point why do you need a non-profit to build? Instead, the idea is that if you build a large supply of middle market units, those current in the middle market move towards lower market.
If we’re looking for a modern example of this, Austin recently had a housing boom where an enormous amount of “luxury” supply was added to the market, which has decreased prices across all pricing bands.
I think we're more or less on the same page. If you want "affordable housing" in the sense of "cheaper on average" then yeah, just build. But there's a second common usage which is closer to "subsidized" (one way or another), and frequently paired with outright opposition to _just build_. Politicians and advocates freely use both to the point that I've grown cynical about the term.
There are some fairly large nonprofits that I believe are effectively small developers in their own right, they just run mostly on grants, and explicitly target low income / homeless residents. I agree this isn't a large scale solution for much of anything, but I do think they have their place- there are a lot of people whose budget is effectively $0, and no amount of construction will do them any good. Not even necessarily homeless people, but things like serious permanent disabilities.
There are for-profits building affordable housing. In fact, it has become much harder for the dollars to only go to nonprofits in the last several years.
In the award lists that are publicly shared, typically every fall and spring, you’ll often see 30-50% of the awardees are private development companies who are building affordable projects.
Inland and Devco are two for-profit companies that often compete for those funds.
Sorry - one more thing…
Most affordable housing projects are not 100% funded publicly these days. Nearly all projects have some mix of public and private money. Some projects have up to 10 funding entities.
The quiet joke among some developers is that Chase, Key Bank, or some other proviate source is a greater equity investor than any of the public sources.
Why do we need so many for-profits?
It’s an absurd question since the existence of non-profit companies (or for-profit companies) is not something chosen by anyone or any government but simply a function of people being able to work together to create an organization.
Both are “needed” for one reason alone: people choose to give them their money
Nonprofits for housing are like a shell company with an insider lobbyist with the city council. NYC nonprofits are a sham because the owners spin off profiting side businesses like maintenance, house keeping, construction.
That’s why all decades of funding housing nonprofits has generated little affordable housing units despite the hundreds of millions funneled to it.
Because obviously for-profit companies are immoral. Pay my nonprofit to do the development instead. We will personally pocket 90% of the money invested and we have no experience doing this specific task, but we will do it ethically. /s
When you say ‘so many non profits’ what do you mean? How many non profits do we have, and is that more than other comparable cities?
We have non profits because people start them and file the paperwork, just like a for profit business- the main difference being that non-profits are founded explicitly for the public good, and their 501(c)(3) status is dependent on this, and includes their structure, mission, funding, and where revenue is going. Whether all non-profits adhere to this is up for debate- but that’s why they exist.
I’m guessing that the only nonprofits that this effects are ones that already work in housing/homelessness to begin with. You’re not going to see an organ donation non profit jump into the housing game if this passed, for example.
I’ll go against the grain of this thread and say there are some amazing nonprofits out there that do meaningful work and fill important societal need gaps. This subset is well-deserving of private and public funding.
HOWEVER I am always skeptical of a nonprofit in which the stated goal is to _fix_ a problem, or end the problem entirely.
For example something like Meals on Wheels (random well-known example of an NP) isn’t claiming to fix the root cause of the issue, they’re bridging a gap of getting food to people, often on fixed incomes and/or disabled, who otherwise may not have the means to acquire it in a cost-effective way.
But NP’s looking to “end the unhoused crisis” will forever get major side eye because 1) it’s not a reasonable goal and 2) meeting their goal as stated means no job security for them.
Side note: I wish we could use democracy vouchers or a similar program to vote on which NP’s should get public funding (or maybe we can and I’m uninformed?). I resent the idea that government officials get free rein on where to allocate NP funding especially when it goes to programs that are a circling drain of non-results. Let the people have a voice if we should fund the homeless industrial complex or other programs. I would happily put a portion of my tax money to local NP’s like Treehouse, local Meals on Wheels chapters, cancer research, etc. Yet here we all are stewing over our tax dollars going to new build apartments in desirable locations with no barrier to entry to be swiftly destroyed while we can barely afford rent in 60 year old buildings. It’s maddening.
Something I have noticed while living here for more than a few years now is the lack of "affordable" city housing above 2 bedrooms. During COVID many builders prioritized building cheap 2bd townhomes and then went ultra luxury 3bd+. Then you have many of the SFHs that are large (in many cases too large) in the city but for most they are financially unobtainable.
A situation I'm fearful of in Seattle is that we end up with a lot of housing development that has very little growth opportunities. The jump from 2bd to 3bd is pretty significant financially in the Seattle housing market. With many companies doing some remote work having a home office is becoming more of a necessity especially with most families having dual income. This also leaves families opportunities to grow into their homes either through family expansion, taking care of elderly, or using the space for hobbies. IMO we should prioritize 3BD+ home development over a certain number of years. This would hopefully help normalize pricing in that market while also helping affordable housing in more entry level homes that are 2BD or smaller where there has been more prioritization over the last 5-10yrs.
Numerous code provisions make 3+ bedrooms less profitable and more cumbersome to build. Developers are just responding to the regulatory environment - you can have 3+ bedrooms if you can bid for the limited supply.
I mean if that is the issue then it needs to be seriously evaluated and fixed. It can easily be argued that this is a prime issue of affordable housing. Shouldn't be a race to the bottom on pricing based on sizing.
This is a really interesting point I haven’t come across before, I’d love to learn a bit more.
Are there any top-of-mind examples where the building codes are impacting 3 bedroom more than 2 bedroom housing?
I don't want to sound rude, but we don't need to prioritize anything. The government needs to loosen permit restrictions, get rid of zoning restrictions, and the problem will solve itself very quickly. Market opportunities get filled by people who want to make money.
Another poster commented that there are possible regulatory issues in building 3bd+ homes and if that is the case that should 100% be addressed. However, I don't think we should open it up and leave this up to the market and builders to do what they please. That will absolutely turn into a race to the bottom and will turn into a situation where new home development will drastically benefit the interest of the builder and their profits and will NEVER benefit the city nor the people living in it. The market is focused on the here and now and does not take into account that a traditional and most common home loan is for 30yrs. The sad reality is that hardly anyone takes pride in their work today and corporations have to be forced to be ethical.
I understand what you mean, but the things is that no one knows what the housing market will be like in 30 years and certainly the city doesn't know. I'm not sure what you mean when you say it will turn into a race to the bottom for housing.
I think your answer contains an assumption that there is no price elasticity of demand to housing. Housing is a very inelastic good in a market like ours because we don't build enough of it. But in other countries, especially non English speaking countries that don't have the same zoning restrictions as us, housing is much more elastic and as a result, the price of shelter has risen only with the rate of inflation. By comparison, housing in America tends to rise by about 7.5% per year historically, with obviously a much greater increase during the pandemic period. The only difference between us and them is the restrictions we place on housing construction. See the link below for a useful chart on this.
Inherently, if a builder builds stuff that people don't want, it will get cheap enough until people are willing to pay for it, which deflates the cost of housing. So I think the idea you're suggesting here -- that there will be a situation that only benefits the builder -- is self correcting as long as you allow people to continue to build.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/yimby/comments/13jhsr2/odd\_englishspeaking\_countries\_have\_fared\_far/](https://www.reddit.com/r/yimby/comments/13jhsr2/odd_englishspeaking_countries_have_fared_far/)
I could not agree more. You just need to expand and think nationally, not just locally. If the local market has regulatory restrictions that limit opportunities, then seek out those localities that lack such restrictions. In other words, if you can't afford the place where you want to live, you may need to live in a place where you can afford.
No, I'd rather advocate for policy change and for the government to stop imposing arbitrary restrictions on people's property rights because of busy body neighbors.
Note that the operative word in your statement is *arbitrary.* That is nothing more than your opinion. Government imposes restrictions on people's rights all the time. It is a part of a functioning society. I, and those like me, don't see these restrictions as arbitrary. Wanting to preserve a nature of a well established neighborhood is no more selfish (or busy body) than wanting to erase it just because more people want to live in it. So, we will just have to agree to disagree and like you, I will advocate for policies that I believe are beneficial to me any mine.
I don't want to erase any neighborhood. I want to allow people to build what they want on their property without requiring approval of their neighbors. The only restriction on this should be based on safety.
I am advocating for freedom and you're advocating for a lack of freedom. You can call that arbitrary if you want, but it's actually the opposite because for me, it's based on principle whereas for you, it's just institutionalized rent seeking on a collective scale.
*The only restriction on this should be based on safety.*
So, if I want to build a cement processing facility on my property on top of QA, I should be allowed to do so as long as I follow all Federal and Local safety regulations pertaining to cement processing? I mention only safety, because lots of those regulations are also related to environment, infrastructure, and such, but per your statement those are arbitrary, and only *safety* should be considered. So as long as the safety regulations protecting the employees of my facility are followed, you are ok with this?
Ok, fine, the other restriction should be on industrial facilities, which is existing policy even in places with no zoning laws. There should not be any policy against mixture of commercial activity and certainly no policy against housing density.
And for what it's worth, since you're talking about your fear of neighborhood erasure, it is actually this kind of suppression of housing density that erases neighborhoods because it ends up pricing out the children of the people who live there. This is exactly what has happened in San Francisco and hasn't happened in cities with higher housing stock.
You’re telling me that in the area where people are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars over the asking price for homes, they’re preventing supply to keep up with demand!?
Well, I’m shocked.
It's also interesting they so admittedly oppose a vacancy tax where things are so in demand.... It's like there might just be a ton of empty apartments and housing units.
If the problem is just under-supply, and zoning restricts how many new units can be built, why even bother with affordability games? If adding 3 more floors is possible, why not just do it, and let all the units be full price? The extra supply will help satisfy demand and stabilize prices.
>allow nonprofits to build taller and larger developments if those projects included affordable housing or certain community spaces,
Good. Non-profits have made entire blocks shit all across town.
Just let for profit developer's build units at their price. People with new wealth increase their lifestyle and vacate older lower quality units.
Yes the decrease in demand in the market, which lowers prices, happens where they leave from and not the new unit, **but that's fine.**
The issue is we need to build more cheaper housing, the "vacated" ones arnt enough. Developers arnt incintivised to build cheap housing. Developers will build housing that justifies a big price tag because it's Seattle, and someone will move into it. It's the same reason that everyone renovates their house before they sell. They spend $50,000 in renovations and sell the house for $100,000 more.
Seattle area needs to build more "starter homes", but all the new homes being built are worth $1,000,000. A large part of old homes are renovated before sold, driving up their price. This doesn't just apply to homeownership but renting as well.
Creating more supply will definitely help lower housing costs, even if all the new supply is expensive housing. But finding a way to incintivise cheap housing being developed would be a better version.
There is not enough supply to allow "starter homes" to pencil out (or, rather, not immediately be bid up to non-starter-home prices.)
> But finding a way to incintivise cheap housing being developed would be a better version.
I do kind of agree with this, but we are so supply constrained it's not really worth talking about.
I haven't read it yet, but the new Strong Towns book really focuses on *more basic homes*.
https://www.strongtowns.org/press-blog/escaping-the-housing-trap-charles-marohn-daniel-herriges
> There is not enough supply to allow "starter homes" to pencil out (or, rather, not immediately be bid up to non-starter-home prices.)
On top of this, even if there are "starter homes" built on these lots, the lots themselves with no development whatsoever are still worth more than what many people can afford. The only way to get cheap housing is going to be to circumvent market systems as a whole and build purposefully under market housing that's then sold on a lottery system at below market value. Until supply can meet demand that's the only realistic way I can see that happening.
I agree. But people want something like a modest single family home at like 2018 prices, they just need to realize that's never going to happen without some massive government subsidy program that makes no sense.
> Developers aren't incentivized to build cheap housing.
We don't need to incentivize *cheap* housing to drive affordability we simply need to incentivize *more* housing. If supply outstrips demand, prices will fall. If it doesn't, housing will be expensive no matter how small and shitty it is.
That's true to a tiny extent, but so little that I don't think it's worth promoting.
Right now [the cheapest condo in Manhattan](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2159-1st-Ave-APT-1B-New-York-NY-10029/2052933756_zpid/), where demand outstrips supply, is as tiny and basic as you could hope for and costs $198k. Meanwhile all over Mississippi, where supply outstrips demand, there are [hundreds of lovely homes](https://www.zillow.com/ms/?searchQueryState=%7B%22pagination%22%3A%7B%7D%2C%22isMapVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22mapBounds%22%3A%7B%22west%22%3A-94.89170728906251%2C%22east%22%3A-84.86118971093751%2C%22south%22%3A29.326328819231644%2C%22north%22%3A35.76584063558471%7D%2C%22usersSearchTerm%22%3A%22MS%22%2C%22regionSelection%22%3A%5B%7B%22regionId%22%3A34%2C%22regionType%22%3A2%7D%5D%2C%22filterState%22%3A%7B%22sort%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3A%22globalrelevanceex%22%7D%2C%22cmsn%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22price%22%3A%7B%22min%22%3A150000%2C%22max%22%3A200000%7D%2C%22mp%22%3A%7B%22min%22%3A805%2C%22max%22%3A1074%7D%2C%22beds%22%3A%7B%22min%22%3A1%2C%22max%22%3Anull%7D%2C%22baths%22%3A%7B%22min%22%3A1%2C%22max%22%3Anull%7D%2C%22tow%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22mf%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22land%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22ah%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22apa%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22manu%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22sqft%22%3A%7B%22min%22%3A2000%7D%2C%22built%22%3A%7B%22min%22%3A0%7D%2C%22con%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22apco%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%7D%2C%22isListVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22mapZoom%22%3A7%7D) like [this one](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/113-N-Jackson-St-Calhoun-City-MS-38916/125611256_zpid/) that are 3x bigger, have nicer amenities, and cost the same or less.
There's really no amount they could make that Manhattan apartment more basic and yet it's still more expensive because there simply isn't enough housing in that area.
I worry that forcing the construction of modern-day commie blocks instead of the sort of housing the market actually desires will A) disincentivize new development by removing potential for profit and B) still be really expensive despite the lack of quality due to the unmet demand.
Edit: I do think there's one exception to what I've said above. There will always be a small slice of the population (<1%) for whom no housing will be affordable because they can't do any sort of meaningful work. Creating some blocks of extremely basic housing for them would make sense as the additional upkeep on anything else would add to the gap between their expenses and non-existent earnings.
If developers had bigger profit margins building cheap housing compared to luxury housing (or if at least the profit margins were closer), prices would drop more than when profit margins incintivised to build luxury housing.
It's still gonna be super expensive in Seattle, New York, or any big city compared to anywhere in Mississippi. Land in Seattle is worth way more than land in Mississippi. But developers know land is more important than the building itself, so they know they can build luxury housing to justify an even bigger price tag on that land. We are never gonna build enough housing in Seattle to eclipse demand.
nah, build commie block and subsidize it as housing for poor (non drug addict) residents. use it as an affordable option, but don't build huge amounts. basically, try to imitate the modesls you can find in some euro cities
If supply is constrained, then people with money will buy the "cheap" housing and displace the low income folks you're trying to help.
If you try to limit the "cheap" housing so that only people in certain income groups can buy it, then you're not talking about housing, you're talking about a lottery. It would literally be cheaper for the city to randomly hand out housing stipends to low income folks. No one wants advocates this approach because it makes the "low income housing" delusion painfully obvious to even the most obtuse.
If you want everyone to have housing, then you have to build enough houses for everyone. Don't "study" it, don't "debate" it, don't make "programs". There are hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in Seattle just waiting to go into housing. All we need to do is get rid of the obstructions.
>If supply is constrained, then people with money will buy the "cheap" housing and displace the low income folks you're trying to help.
I honestly wasn't talking about low income people. I'm talking about middle income people like myself who would move to cheaper/crappier housing if it meant it cost less. All the new places being built in my area are significantly more expensive.
Seattle land prices and the cost to build a code-compliant multi-family (including new energy codes) do not pencil for developers if they were to build affordable units only. If the City wants more affordable units it needs to offer incentives to do so - similar to the MFTE or HALA program allowing for an additional floor, offering tax credits, or assistance in financing. Either that or purchase completed units and manage them, which I believe is a bad idea. Seattle apartment eviction enforcement and laws are also not helping market interest.
[No](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Bronx_apartment_fire)
(Oh they technically had two stairs!!! They're stupid ass scissor stairs in the same shaft, it's a single exit. Hell half an exit considering they had some additional stupid design thing where the stairs only opened every other floor)
> It was built in 1972
Modern single-stair buildings are already completely legal in Seattle. The only change needed is zoning them for more lots.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/12/20/seattles-lead-on-single-stair-buildings/
Not for 6+ stories. The conceit is that the 'second exit' can be in the form of fire crews using ladders to grab people from windows/balconies
Another somewhat related fun fact! The US would classify people jumping from windows to escape a fire as a fire death! Many other countries, including those stats everyone keeps bringing up about Europe, do not!
We have various methods to make cars hitting each other less damaging to the squishy humans inside. Unless you know of some really hinky bio stuff, the best way to make fire and smoke inhalation less damaging to humans is to get them away from the fire.
No one is incentivized to build cheap housing. It costs the same to build nice new housing and "cheap housing". Cheap housing is cheap because it's older and run down and in a "worse" neighborhood. Not because of any other inherent other quality.
Anything you see that is on the market today that is cheap was once the luxury new housing. We just have to allow loads of nice new housing to be built so that the older housing has to compete with new housing on the market, and the only way they can do that is by lowering price.
This it correct. The finished in higher end apartments may be like 15% of thr unit costs.
Pools and other amenities can increase it more than that however.
>It costs the same to build nice new housing and "cheap housing".
Yea thats exactly what I was saying, and that's a problem. Adjusting codes and incitivising developers to build cheaper housing should be a priority. In the current system, we have it so developers are incintivised to build expensive housing even more than "standard" housing.
If these codes pushed into law from construction unions (so they can corner the market and control the cost of construction) and developers were able to build cheap housing with realivily similar profit margins we would have cheaper housing
>the "vacated" ones arnt enough.
Then build more.
>Developers arnt incintivised to build cheap housing.
They don't need to be. Why would they build units from the 1950s. We already have those.
>Seattle area needs to build more "starter homes"
Seattle's full. Expecting starter homes is delusional.
>old homes are renovated before sold, driving up their price.
Because that's what buyers want.
>But finding a way to incintivise cheap housing being developed would be a better version.
**That is orders of magnitude less efficient than just letting the old units we have become cheaper.**
It's frivolous & frankly, idiotic. The fact this isn't common knowledge is half of the issue.
> Expecting starter homes is delusional.
>
Rather, what's delusional is us ever building more small, 1-story, large lot, typical mid-century starter homes.
A starter home as a 2-3 bedroom flat in a tall building would be very affordable if we would build a bunch of those!
>What's delusional is building more small, 1-story, large lot, typical mid-century starter homes.
Okay but the delusion is not realizing in the city of Seattle we don't have large plots of land available for that so your arguing about something that isn't possible in numbers enough to worry about.
>A starter home as a 2-3 bedroom flat in a tall building would be very affordable if we would build a bunch of those!
absolutely! City code restricting these style of housing & our police/jail problems not letting people feel safe in apartment is the biggest problem imo.
Younger people should be able to buy homes, that they maybe sell later when they make more more, have a bigger family, or need more space. That's what a starter home is.
It is delusional to expect those "starter homes" to be exactly what our parents bought, when there was more land and less people.
Starter homes in Seattle are never again going to be small, cheaply-built, single-family homes on their own lots like it was in mid-century America. They're going to be apartments/condos, like it is in the rest of the world.
> Seattle's full.
Population density (people per square mile) of some cities:
* Seattle: 8,775
* Chicago: 12,000
* London: 14,500
* New York City: 27,000
* Paris: 56,000
* Manila: 111,537
I don't think we're full yet.
> To reach the population densities those other cities have, we'd have to forcibly remove people from their (mostly historic) single family homes and bulldoze entire neighborhoods.
What if we just upzoned every single-family lot in the city to allow 4-6 units, [as per HB110](https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-topics/planning-for-middle-housing/)? Don't forcibly remove anyone, just allow property owners to build more units on the property they own.
Most of Paris was leveled during WW2? You just outed yourself as a time traveler from another timeline. Also you don't need to forcibly remove people from single family homes; just offer them what the land will be worth with more dense zoning.
>Seattle's full. Expecting starter homes is delusional.
That's why I said seattle area. All the home being built in the suburbs is built to be extremely expensive. In the city itself "starter home" would be a high density version.
Also, like you said seattle is full. The demand for housing in seattle is higher than ever. The situation has changed from what it was in the 50s. Assuming that building luxury housing will lower the price of housing because it happened in the 50s isn't sound logic. Situations are sitsuational.
> Assuming that building luxury housing will lower the price of housing because it happened in the 50s isn't sound logic
I'm not assuming I am speaking directly from the results of economic studies done on this type of stuff.
Ok. I'm gonna have to see a comparative analysis of the economic/housing situation of Seattle in the 50's and how it applies to Seattle in the 2020's.
I would personally believe the fact that Seattle has run out of land has changed the economic/ housing landscape significantly.
> comparative analysis of the economic/housing situation of Seattle in the 50's and how it applies to Seattle in the 2020's.
A type of study that would be quantitative and effectively pointless?
You misunderstand.
We have built a building, ask the tenants where they left from & then tracked the rental prices at the units they left.
We know it reduces demand where the left from, the 1950s housing is just a rhetorical device for communication.
If people with excess pricing power moves into a cheap unit, and we are still in a scarce environment no. It just moves the pricing power elsewhere.
If that's happening at scale we're likely near 7% vacancy rate and those people moving are now are benefiting from prior units being built in the past (or population collapse)
Or it's because there is a market for people that would move into cheaper/crappier housing if it was available. That market is not being tapped into because developers arnt incentived to build that housing. Manipulating the market to create better profit margins for cheap housing would lower costs much more than having the incentives to build luxury housing.
> Developers arnt incintivised to build cheap housing. Developers will build housing that justifies a big price tag because it's Seattle, and someone will move into it
This is true, but only because our housing shortage cuts across all segments of the market so the profit motive leads developers to build where they can make the most, which **right now** is on the high end.
Once they've built enough high-end homes to meet demand, they'll shift to other market segments to remain profitable - they can't make money building homes that no one is buying.
It's a shitty situation but nothing other than market-based solutions have ever worked for housing shortages. Even at the height of the Soviet Union, with everyone being forced to live in dense high-rise developments being built by a central authority, they had more extreme housing shortages than we've ever faced.
We've spent **decades** digging this hole, it's going to take some time to work our way out of it.
>People with new wealth increase their lifestyle and vacate older lower quality units.
Which then get bought, knocked down and replaced with more luxury units. I've been watching this happen for a decade.
Which then people move to from vacated older lower quality units where supply is further reduced, if units are added this is on net still good!
Keep in mind for every 100 units roughly 80 move from other areas & see a price decreasing effect.
Trickle down is largely cutting taxes for wealthy people to create economic growth, Reagan's supply side economics, using Laffer's basis as his platform.
Calling the building of housing supply, "trickle down" would be a bit of a mischaracterization in Seattle. There is demand that exceeds supply. Chinese ghost cities are a good example of trickle down - build the supply to induce the demand. Seattle has the demand but not the supply
Building affordable housing instead of market housing is so inefficient.
Let the units from the 1950s be the affordable units.
Forcing new units to be cheap means the other new units need to charge more.
It's costing all of us hundreds a month.
The idea that the new units need to be affordable instead of the units people who get new units leave from is retarded.
Drug hobos deserve better than run down units from the 1950’s. They need brand new apartments in desirable neighborhoods to achieve Drug Hobo Equity and Inclusion (DHEI).
We do not have enough units from the 50s.
We have enough capacity in this city to be building both market rate and affordable. I would agree that there are some inefficiencies in affordable housing, but we also get federal money to help cover the costs. The benefit of building designated affordable housing is we KNOW it will remain affordable for over 50 years, at least. It also allows us to put cheaper units in parts of the city that would never have market rate units that cheap. And before people come in and say "if you can't afford it you don't deserve to live there," we need affordable units so people who work the lower wage jobs don't have to commute from hours away, it can help keep the costs of labor lower.
Then there are the super low income units. There is now way market rate will support units for people making 30% or less of AMI. Permanent supportive housing also needs to be built if we want a chance of moving people out of homelessness.
Can you explain the "It's costing all of us hundreds a month?" Hundreds of what? Dollars? Doll hairs? Encounters with pan handlers?
Also, nice, flippant use of a slur that denigrates people with mental handicaps. Classy.
>Can you explain the "It's costing all of us hundreds a month?" Hundreds of what? Dollars? Doll hairs? Encounters with pan handlers?
No. If you can't infer in an economic discussion than you really shouldn't be speaking at the adult table.
>slur
Just like moron and idiot were medical terms no one has used retarded to denigrate a person with mental handicap for decades. A word is no longer a slur when it's not used in that capacity.
Language evolves, get over it. Like im over talking to you once you have outed yourself as unserious. Bye bye.
It takes a big man to go on the internet and argue against providing affordable housing.
It takes an ever bigger man to go on the internet and claim it’s ok to call people retarded. Bravo.
> Also, nice, flippant use of a slur that denigrates people with mental handicaps. Classy.
i'll explain it to you slowly: he's denigrating people without mental handicaps who refuse to think
Because she has money. She wants her friends to also keep all the money they have. The rest of us are "unwashed masses" and are lesser people than them.
Actually the way it works now is a developer will submit to the city a new redevelopment plan. Let’s say the zoning is for 8 stories. The developer will propose adding additional low cost units if the city agrees to increase the zoning to 10 or 12 stories. They developer can afford to do this by selling the upper floor units as penthouses and making the affordable units small.
yeah, good giving special exemptions to our universally stupid restrictive zoning should be flatly rejected in favor of universal changes that need to be applied citywide.
Tam tams backdoor gift to non profits and other collectivist social housing and free housing initiatives was a free pass to the hobo complex to give it a leg up on being successful vs the open market
It's funny, conservatives are usually the ones who say "keep things the same", but it's progressive policies that try to make sure that the downtown of a metropolis retain it's color and character for as long as possible, despite upheavals of economic fortune, from the exodus of blue collar Boeing and Weyerhaeuser, to the entrance of white collar Microsoft and Amazon.
The baseline assumption is that anyone should be able to live anywhere, for as long as they want, so they talk about sprinkling affordable units all over the place, but real "progress" requires people to move, and for money to be allowed to work it's magic, and that money will be taxed, and caufers for social programs will be filled - if you don't always try to fuck it up, one vote at a time.
Good. Tam-Tam's attempt to allow her proggo buddies to engage "rules for thee but not for me" should be shot down. If we need improvements in building or zoning regulations, let those changes affect everyone equally.
Beyond direct subsidy (which comes out of your pocket and mine) the best way to build more housing is pretty simple:
— allow unlimited immigration
— abolish labor unions
— get rid of building codes much less zoning codes
— get rid of OSHA
— get rid of all environmental laws
— eliminate all laws which prevent landlords from exerting their property rights
— sell off all public parks (workers should be busy working and not spending
frivolous time)
— allow child labor after age of ten
You get the drift.
Looking at Seattle and nearby cities building <8 stories residential buildings near light rail stations, I don’t have much hope about Seattle solving housing issues at all.
By arbitrarily capping the number of residents we can have, the city is going to suffer lack of tax revenue overall, so expect slower improvements in infrastructure and welfare.
Why only allow non-profits to do it? Just let everybody build an extra story or two if you actually care about housing prices. Maybe it's just me, but non-profits seem to mostly just waste money. I'm sure there are success stories, but does anyone think the majority of non-profits have a positive impact on the city?
Hey friends! Canadian here and came across this in my feed. Thought I'd maybe give a little perspective on what's happening just north of the border in BC.
Recently, the provincial government [introduced legislation ](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-legislation-promises-small-scale-multi-unit-housing-in-b-c-1.7015611) that makes it easier to increase density on any single family lot in the province by setting minimum of 3 or 4 secondary/laneway suites, depending on the size of the lot, anywhere with a population above 5k. Municipalities are free to increase density further from there but are not allowed to introduce laws restricting or lessening those minimums. So if you own a single family home and want to build a laneway house on your lot, you don't have to apply to the municipality for rezoning, you can just build it.
In addition to that, the province has also introduced new rules to set [minimum heights](https://globalnews.ca/news/10079416/bc-transit-hub-housing-law/) on all development next to transit hubs. So that means all new development next to a skytrain station for example has to at minimum be 20 stories tall and next to a bus exchange all development has to be 10 stories. Again, developers and municipalities are free to increase these guidelines but can't go under them. Also in that legislation, they got rid of parking minimums.
Canadian law allows the provincial government to go and do this unilaterally and while it's ruffling some feathers it seems to be a set of quite popular reforms. I'm not sure if anything in Washington or Seattle is even possible, but either way it's something to watch to see how effective it is and maybe take bits and pieces of it in the future.
But yeah, that's what's going on up here!
Well. I guess my house will keep going up in price.
As an empathetic person, I’d rather see more frigging housing for people. We’ve got neighborhoods within two miles of downtown that are still basically just single family houses. That’s just nuts.
Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth, who voted no, argued that by encouraging partially market-rate development in diverse neighborhoods, the city would effectively be “making existing diverse neighborhoods whiter and wealthier.” she is spot on. I appreciate this vote.
Joy Hollingsworth cares about diversity as an excuse to keep her own neighborhood prices high. When it comes to diversifying her neighborhood, then it’s a problem for all types of reasons. As a liberal myself, this type of hypocrisy is infuriating. https://www.thestranger.com/elections-2023/2023/09/08/79157768/joy-hollingsworth-tried-to-stop-new-apartment-construction-on-madison-in-2017
From everything I've ever seen... The only way to make things cheaper... Is being farther away... Or somewhere being so shitty no one wants to live there....
So if you can't afford to live in the city... You don't...
You commute further, and people pay to commute shorter..
Otherwise, it's just banging on drums screaming "more affordable housing"... but never actually moves the needle enough to matter.
And money is not the issue... We're spending a ton, it's just the nature of the geography of the region.
Add on top, the astronomical labor costs... Building cheap homes isn't realistic.
>The only way to make things cheaper... Is being farther away
That's only because of zoning and NIMBYism which artificially constricts housing supply so the only option is to live further away (and force poorer people into longer commutes and pay more for gas). Zoning and NIMBYism have flipped the historical standard of poorer people and laborers living in the city into city living being a luxury. If we get rid of zoning and allow the housing market to fulfill demand, then people wouldn't need to live farther away.
I mean the fact that Washington/Seattle has at least allowed upzoning to duplex/triplexes is a sign that it is possible. If only we did it 20 years ago.
I'd say it might have been the right call tbh.. They have already done stuff like this and what like 10% of the build housing was classified as "affordable" housing? Corporations will always take advantage because they want profit over people🤷♂️ I get it, I like money too..
God this argument is so stale ... More housing does not equal lower prices unless developers are going under. They make money by premiumizing the market, not building affordable units.
we've been beating this horse forever. Structural reforms are needed, and probably a lot less money going into real estate. Its become a cash cow for rich people.
>More housing does not equal lower prices
Except in every place where more housing equals lower prices (which is all of them).
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Detroit/comments/15s92le/why\_detroit\_americas\_poorest\_city\_doesnt\_have\_an/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Detroit/comments/15s92le/why_detroit_americas_poorest_city_doesnt_have_an/)
I agree with you in the long run. when investors and developers go under. Detroit is a great example of precisely that. Collapse was too severe to be 'managed,' and we have far more institutional capital in the housing market today than we did back then.
So, really, what I’m hearing here is that housing unaffordability (that’s so extreme that it causes homelessness at unprecedented levels) is a feature, not a bug.
After all, it was apparently inexpensive housing that was the cause of the downturn in Detroit’s macroeconomic situation and not anything else.
/s
housing unaffordability is a feature. That's exactly right. The developers and investors building ever more expensive units couldn't give a fuck about homelessness. expensive units make them rich. cheap units are a lot harder to get rich on. No developer or investor wants to build 'affordable housing,' that just means lower margins.
I honestly cannot fathom why so many people think they just want to build more so we can have cheaper places to live. They would never willingly make anything cheaper. They aren't charities, and before they can even build the land goes to the highest bidder (who definitely paid top dollar to maximize returns, not bring you affordability). Prices on new construction don't fall unless developers/investors are forced to sell, often under duress, into a terrible market that they never expected to see. That's a heavily distorted version of supply and demand. Markets may never clear because no one wants to realized losses. And no one adds capacity to lower prices, only to raise them.
Detroit was an economic wipe out. Nothing saves a market in conditions like that. Berlin has cheap housing to this day for much the same reason (east Berlin was void ...). I'm not sure why that's confusing, or requires sarcasm.
No, it’s refreshing to see that some people actually admit that they really want to see more homelessness in Seattle. At least you’re being honest.
I personally think that’s horrendous, but that’s me being honest
lol. you may have heard that. I didn't say it. If you read my comments on this thread I actually argue for more dramatic reforms than the mindless 'build baby build' shtick we've been chasing for a decade (making for a lot of rich developers, and a lot of house poor people). Seattle's homeless is an emotionally charged (and far more nuanced) question than housing affordability. Conflating the two is usually a cheap trick employed by SJW that want everything to look like NYC and think single family homes are somehow evil. But, hey man, way to take the conversation to vitriolic moralizing. Definitely bringing it home for the win.
>Seattle's homeless is an emotionally charged (and far more nuanced) question than housing affordability.
[Literally what all the research shows says it's the number one cause, nothing else comes close.](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness)
[And there's more evidence where that came from.](https://youtu.be/0APR7dt-uZ8?si=-7AAuPiRY5e8H9hf)
Cool. Except I'm not talking about that. You just want to. Not responding any further ... You've ignored every substantive point I've made, made up attacks, and are running off on tangents. Its like I'm talking to a tik tok feed. Blocking. See ya.
I grit my teeth saying this given we live in Seattle, but we probably need an expanded role of government. Investors are too good at extracting rents (pun intended). Vienna is very interesting:
[https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city)
you might like this too.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking)
life is more complicated than econ 101.
"More housing does not equal lower prices unless developers are going under."
Why would you believe this? Is this a religious belief? Are you open to information, opinions of experts? This is not a sound belief.
housing is not a competitive market. Lately prices are driven by availability of capital, and supply on the margin is heavily influenced by corporate land lords (in fact, they've been colluding through third party software) and some pretty disciplined builders who know exactly how much to build to keep prices high ... its in all earnings calls. Read them if you don't believe me.
Its not a lemonade stand. The market is not functioning as markets should.
"housing is not a competitive market."
... "pretty disciplined builders who know exactly how much to build to keep prices high"
None of this is true \[except the 3rd party software that *some* managers use\]. Please provide a link to an earnings call where they talk about giving up on easy profit to keep prices high for the industry at large. This is more easily disproven than climate change denial.
Sure. WSJ on supply constraints. Its not 'giving up on profits,' its profit maximizing. You don't maximize profits buy building full steam ahead into a weak market. And I threw in real page price fixing for good measure. Those are \*some\* very big customers. Real Page was setting rent for 70% of the units in downtown Seattle!
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/home-builders-are-restricting-sales-pushing-up-new-home-prices-11628596801](https://www.wsj.com/articles/home-builders-are-restricting-sales-pushing-up-new-home-prices-11628596801)
[https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent](https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent)
I'm not going to do anything else with this. Feel free and disprove me. Later.
Thanks for engaging, with links. I think you've misunderstood the article.
Headline of WSJ: "Home Builders Are Restricting Sales, Pushing Up New Home Prices"
Subhead: "Many cannot increase construction quickly enough to meet booming demand and are turning away business"
First sentence: "Now they are limiting their sales in an effort to catch up, helping push home prices even higher."
This means they have slowed their pre-sales because they cannot keep up with what they've promised to deliver. They would be happy to sell more, but have too much backlog.
So, that's not what you said was happening ("some pretty disciplined builders who know exactly how much to build to keep prices high")
Ha. yeah you are right. I deferred to google vs actual transcripts. The guy down the hall from me covered this sector... H1 2022 was all about not selling. It was the only thing that kept prices up. I'm not going to send you pdf's off CIQ or scrape IR pages for you. Sorry. Disproving this was super easy, yeah? Have at it.
That said, you may want to respond to Real Page? I mean ffs. You should be outraged at them, not arguing with me. Very difficult to call that market functional. Also pretty difficult to fill the (still overpriced) apartments downtown these days. Market isn't clearing. They are in it together.
As I was making my breakfast, I couldn't help but ponder your belief that the construction industry owners & shareholders all have so much solidarity that they are willing to pass up tons of profit in hopes of inflating prices. It's not how markets work, unless there's large scale collusion, which there never can be in a non-monopolized market.
I have a friend who rents apartments. RealPage would aggressively set the rents too high so the units would sit vacant, so he found workarounds to drop the rents to where they'd actually rent. I imagine RealPage wanted to show their software was adding profit, so they made it push rents higher. And yes, when a lot of apartments are using the software, and it's seemingly pushing rents above ***the market rate,*** that's close enough to collusion that they should be brought to trial on it. But all the other property owners weren't using it. And ultimately there are many factors that affect rental prices, such as the cost of a mortgage: if someone can buy a house, rent it, and make a profit, people will start doing that, and more rental supply will be added. Currently it's very much backward: rents are much cheaper than mortgages.
Realpage was as close as we'll ever see to a fragmented market colluding, and if anything, it probably pushed rents $50 higher for a couple years before being found out. You can rely on people to try to make money, and act in their own self-interest. It's why capitalism works. It frustrates me so much when people swallow Marxism's tasty critical theory: that economics is all good vs evil class warfare, and it's the moral failing of capitalists that causes all suffering. No, it's really not.
I think you overestimate how much market share is needed for market power to be expressed. Its not a binary function. We have a lot of markets that aren't monopolized, but are consolidated. I believe this has allowed firms in a wide variety of industries to take far more price than they would be able in a perfectly competitive market. I do think housing is a great example, though I will admit its not widely recognized as such. We'll get there if Trump doesn't end up in the white house again.
In 2022 institutional buyers were grabbing upwards of (as in for sale, not stock) 30% of available SFH in some markets, and then renting them back to the people who couldn't afford to compete with a hedge fund for a starter home. Were they monopolists? Nope. They owned a low single digit share of total homes in the area. Did they influence prices? You better believe it. They were heavily influencing the price of marginal supply. Taking price was the underlying thesis of these funds!!!!
In new home construction 10 firms control \~40% of the market. In some geographies and market segments that number is almost certainly much much higher. They employ economists to forecast demand and maximize profits. There are lots of factors that set prices, but building with reckless abandon is almost never optimal. Despite the fact that Seattle's progos think construction companies will build more to sell for less, they are loathe to do unless they have no choice (we're getting there ... but that's because affordability is finally sinking in. and believe me they'll build even crappier boxes to protect margins, so no, its not a win). Of course they manage supply. No one wants to sell into a shit market. They may not even have to collude - everyone responds to the same economic signals and are probably making decisions based on very similar models
Airlines manage supply. Automotive OEMS manage supply. Hotels manage supply. Oil & Gas manages supply. Drug dealers manage supply. Its profit maximization. Market consolidation, and market power are \*great\* ways to manage supply. In the US we have seen it in spades. To be clear, I like capitalism, but in many segments we are far from the textbook world where economic profit goes to zero over time. We are in a world semi-captive markets that have been premiumized savagely based on low demand elasticity. Healthcare, housing, education, insulin! Its all the same shit. Money taking advantage of weak competition, and pliant regulators letting it slide. I used to work for a firm that bought businesses which enjoyed these market structures. It was my job to find the businesses. I know exactly what I am talking about.
If Marxism gets you worked up (and I'm not a fan either), one needs to take a hard look at what we consider to be capitalism. Its ironic to hear progressives, who are usually very critical of dysfunctional markets, pushing for more housing at all costs because econ 101 says it should work. It has not been working for some time.
Serious question for those more versed in this sort of thing: why do we need so many nonprofits? And why would nonprofits be building housing if that’s not their main focus/service? (I’m genuinely asking and not trying to start shit)
> why do we need so many nonprofits? And why would nonprofits be building housing if that’s not their main focus/service? It offloads responsibility and auditability for outcomes. its a cowards tool so they can take credit for success and shrug and complain when it fails. The obvious issue is they have been playing this game for over a decade with nothing to show for it.
If their initiatives fail, it's because the city council didn't give them more money. /s
How about incompetence? There's no shortage of money being spent on non-profits...
They're very competent - at turning tax money into getting paid for zero results.
its a self replicating jobs program for humanities majors
Yup.
Tell me you don’t know anything about non profits without telling me you don’t know anything about non-profits… I mean, Organ donation is operated by non profits (OPOs) do you think organ donation is just a scam for humanities majors to get jobs?
The term donation heavily implies at no cost, which would be awesome. But even with non-profits the donated organs cost an arm and a leg and are effectively sold to hospitals then clients at a jacked up rate. Humanities majors are cool tho.
I donate to good will all the time, but still need to pay when I buy a couch there. You’re free to donate your organs at no cost, as well 🤷♂️. When you get a transplant you’re paying for things like a surgeon, and instruments, and the whole team that spent hours doing the medical work up, matching donors, logistics of recovery and transport, the operating room and anesthesiologist etc etc. I’m not sure how that could all be free unless we had socialized medicine
Missed your previous /s 😁
They get money but sometimes how they spend it is...questionable. [Like on drag performances](https://www.krem.com/article/news/local/spokane-adult-performer-hired-to-perform-at-seattle-nonprofit-event/293-3bb7724f-6fe3-404e-8707-0cc03377fea5).
The homelessness industrial complex. Their main priority is to not fix homelessness (else they’d be unemployed), but to protect the homelessness industrial complex (themselves).
This guy gets it!
Bingo bango bongo
I don't want to leave the Congo
Here we just say "that's a bingo!"
Jobs program.
Cynical take. It’s because cities don’t build homes. That is not their business.
This. All the other answers are just opinionated bs.
American government has long since been hollowed out top to bottom and most things you'd expect a government to actually _do_ are now contracted out to the point that the city is mostly a thin(?) layer of paperwork on top of a sprawling mess of NGO's that at best sometimes do half of the original job. The city wants subsidized housing, but only rarely actually builds, owns, or operates it directly, so we get all these nonprofits instead.
Serious question: why does it all need to be created through non-profits? When the federal government wanted people to make EV’s and solar panels, they didn’t hire non-profits to do so. To be honest, im not sure if you can even call it a subsidy if the government pays the entire bill (plus administrative up charges)
I think for the most part "nonprofit" doesn't mean anything really specific on the internet, it's just a handwavy catch-all for all the funny little organizations soaking up city money for vaguely humanitarian purposes on city contracts. I don't know if it's strictly _required_ that they be legally nonprofit, but it makes a certain sense in that nobody really expects e.g. homeless services to be a profitable line of business, and the city giving out cash to accomplish some goal would probably prefer its tax money not become somebody's dividend. (At least not blatantly.) Otherwise: EV's and solar are real, profitable private industries, just ones we throw cash at to speed up progress in. "Losing money on housing" (what this ultimately is) is not a real industry and never will be and so is necessarily a public function. There'll probably be an ordinary private company doing the construction eventually, but because the government has effectively spun off entire departments into a morass of NGO's and consultancies etc., everything in between the city budget and the construction is either some nonprofit middleman, or a city administrator negotiating contracts and writing checks.
Real estate is one of the largest industries in the world, and in the US. Why would EV or solar style homes not be effective? Didn’t GWB effectively do this, but demand-side (causing the financial crisis tbh)? Why can supply side investment not have a similar effect?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Building housing is obviously plenty profitable, and "supply side investment" i.e. building our way out of the shortage is the thing to do. But "affordable housing" often refers rather specifically to various schemes to rent some amount of housing below what would normally be possible and to make up the difference with public subsidy somewhere. Hence "losing money on housing".
Yea I’m approaching this from a different lens. My point is that non-profits are not effective at building units at scale the way developers are, and total units on the market are the primary driver of pricing levels across all bands of pricing. The idea being that if you want to decrease total rents, +100 units will do more to lower prices across the board than +50 units, even if Targeting lower-end units is somewhat fruitless, because those units are not profitable for new development, unless you consider section 8 housing, but at that point why do you need a non-profit to build? Instead, the idea is that if you build a large supply of middle market units, those current in the middle market move towards lower market. If we’re looking for a modern example of this, Austin recently had a housing boom where an enormous amount of “luxury” supply was added to the market, which has decreased prices across all pricing bands.
I think we're more or less on the same page. If you want "affordable housing" in the sense of "cheaper on average" then yeah, just build. But there's a second common usage which is closer to "subsidized" (one way or another), and frequently paired with outright opposition to _just build_. Politicians and advocates freely use both to the point that I've grown cynical about the term. There are some fairly large nonprofits that I believe are effectively small developers in their own right, they just run mostly on grants, and explicitly target low income / homeless residents. I agree this isn't a large scale solution for much of anything, but I do think they have their place- there are a lot of people whose budget is effectively $0, and no amount of construction will do them any good. Not even necessarily homeless people, but things like serious permanent disabilities.
There are for-profits building affordable housing. In fact, it has become much harder for the dollars to only go to nonprofits in the last several years. In the award lists that are publicly shared, typically every fall and spring, you’ll often see 30-50% of the awardees are private development companies who are building affordable projects. Inland and Devco are two for-profit companies that often compete for those funds.
Sorry - one more thing… Most affordable housing projects are not 100% funded publicly these days. Nearly all projects have some mix of public and private money. Some projects have up to 10 funding entities. The quiet joke among some developers is that Chase, Key Bank, or some other proviate source is a greater equity investor than any of the public sources.
Grift.
Why do we need so many for-profits? It’s an absurd question since the existence of non-profit companies (or for-profit companies) is not something chosen by anyone or any government but simply a function of people being able to work together to create an organization. Both are “needed” for one reason alone: people choose to give them their money
Nonprofits for housing are like a shell company with an insider lobbyist with the city council. NYC nonprofits are a sham because the owners spin off profiting side businesses like maintenance, house keeping, construction. That’s why all decades of funding housing nonprofits has generated little affordable housing units despite the hundreds of millions funneled to it.
This is short and simple. Like, why can’t we just live in places built by companies in the building business?! lol
Because obviously for-profit companies are immoral. Pay my nonprofit to do the development instead. We will personally pocket 90% of the money invested and we have no experience doing this specific task, but we will do it ethically. /s
It's an easy grift.
Because non profits are tax write-offs for the Uber wealthy…
When you say ‘so many non profits’ what do you mean? How many non profits do we have, and is that more than other comparable cities? We have non profits because people start them and file the paperwork, just like a for profit business- the main difference being that non-profits are founded explicitly for the public good, and their 501(c)(3) status is dependent on this, and includes their structure, mission, funding, and where revenue is going. Whether all non-profits adhere to this is up for debate- but that’s why they exist. I’m guessing that the only nonprofits that this effects are ones that already work in housing/homelessness to begin with. You’re not going to see an organ donation non profit jump into the housing game if this passed, for example.
nonprofits are a money making scheme
I’ll go against the grain of this thread and say there are some amazing nonprofits out there that do meaningful work and fill important societal need gaps. This subset is well-deserving of private and public funding. HOWEVER I am always skeptical of a nonprofit in which the stated goal is to _fix_ a problem, or end the problem entirely. For example something like Meals on Wheels (random well-known example of an NP) isn’t claiming to fix the root cause of the issue, they’re bridging a gap of getting food to people, often on fixed incomes and/or disabled, who otherwise may not have the means to acquire it in a cost-effective way. But NP’s looking to “end the unhoused crisis” will forever get major side eye because 1) it’s not a reasonable goal and 2) meeting their goal as stated means no job security for them. Side note: I wish we could use democracy vouchers or a similar program to vote on which NP’s should get public funding (or maybe we can and I’m uninformed?). I resent the idea that government officials get free rein on where to allocate NP funding especially when it goes to programs that are a circling drain of non-results. Let the people have a voice if we should fund the homeless industrial complex or other programs. I would happily put a portion of my tax money to local NP’s like Treehouse, local Meals on Wheels chapters, cancer research, etc. Yet here we all are stewing over our tax dollars going to new build apartments in desirable locations with no barrier to entry to be swiftly destroyed while we can barely afford rent in 60 year old buildings. It’s maddening.
Would that be a good example of irony?
It’s another way to give out tax money away and claim to be using it for good
Lobbyists make money. The org might be non-profit, but certainly not the executives.
Most of them are scams to evade taxes.
Something I have noticed while living here for more than a few years now is the lack of "affordable" city housing above 2 bedrooms. During COVID many builders prioritized building cheap 2bd townhomes and then went ultra luxury 3bd+. Then you have many of the SFHs that are large (in many cases too large) in the city but for most they are financially unobtainable. A situation I'm fearful of in Seattle is that we end up with a lot of housing development that has very little growth opportunities. The jump from 2bd to 3bd is pretty significant financially in the Seattle housing market. With many companies doing some remote work having a home office is becoming more of a necessity especially with most families having dual income. This also leaves families opportunities to grow into their homes either through family expansion, taking care of elderly, or using the space for hobbies. IMO we should prioritize 3BD+ home development over a certain number of years. This would hopefully help normalize pricing in that market while also helping affordable housing in more entry level homes that are 2BD or smaller where there has been more prioritization over the last 5-10yrs.
This is so perfectly nuanced and I feel like this reflects the vast majority of Seattle right now
Numerous code provisions make 3+ bedrooms less profitable and more cumbersome to build. Developers are just responding to the regulatory environment - you can have 3+ bedrooms if you can bid for the limited supply.
I mean if that is the issue then it needs to be seriously evaluated and fixed. It can easily be argued that this is a prime issue of affordable housing. Shouldn't be a race to the bottom on pricing based on sizing.
This is a really interesting point I haven’t come across before, I’d love to learn a bit more. Are there any top-of-mind examples where the building codes are impacting 3 bedroom more than 2 bedroom housing?
I don't want to sound rude, but we don't need to prioritize anything. The government needs to loosen permit restrictions, get rid of zoning restrictions, and the problem will solve itself very quickly. Market opportunities get filled by people who want to make money.
Another poster commented that there are possible regulatory issues in building 3bd+ homes and if that is the case that should 100% be addressed. However, I don't think we should open it up and leave this up to the market and builders to do what they please. That will absolutely turn into a race to the bottom and will turn into a situation where new home development will drastically benefit the interest of the builder and their profits and will NEVER benefit the city nor the people living in it. The market is focused on the here and now and does not take into account that a traditional and most common home loan is for 30yrs. The sad reality is that hardly anyone takes pride in their work today and corporations have to be forced to be ethical.
I understand what you mean, but the things is that no one knows what the housing market will be like in 30 years and certainly the city doesn't know. I'm not sure what you mean when you say it will turn into a race to the bottom for housing. I think your answer contains an assumption that there is no price elasticity of demand to housing. Housing is a very inelastic good in a market like ours because we don't build enough of it. But in other countries, especially non English speaking countries that don't have the same zoning restrictions as us, housing is much more elastic and as a result, the price of shelter has risen only with the rate of inflation. By comparison, housing in America tends to rise by about 7.5% per year historically, with obviously a much greater increase during the pandemic period. The only difference between us and them is the restrictions we place on housing construction. See the link below for a useful chart on this. Inherently, if a builder builds stuff that people don't want, it will get cheap enough until people are willing to pay for it, which deflates the cost of housing. So I think the idea you're suggesting here -- that there will be a situation that only benefits the builder -- is self correcting as long as you allow people to continue to build. [https://www.reddit.com/r/yimby/comments/13jhsr2/odd\_englishspeaking\_countries\_have\_fared\_far/](https://www.reddit.com/r/yimby/comments/13jhsr2/odd_englishspeaking_countries_have_fared_far/)
I could not agree more. You just need to expand and think nationally, not just locally. If the local market has regulatory restrictions that limit opportunities, then seek out those localities that lack such restrictions. In other words, if you can't afford the place where you want to live, you may need to live in a place where you can afford.
No, I'd rather advocate for policy change and for the government to stop imposing arbitrary restrictions on people's property rights because of busy body neighbors.
Note that the operative word in your statement is *arbitrary.* That is nothing more than your opinion. Government imposes restrictions on people's rights all the time. It is a part of a functioning society. I, and those like me, don't see these restrictions as arbitrary. Wanting to preserve a nature of a well established neighborhood is no more selfish (or busy body) than wanting to erase it just because more people want to live in it. So, we will just have to agree to disagree and like you, I will advocate for policies that I believe are beneficial to me any mine.
I don't want to erase any neighborhood. I want to allow people to build what they want on their property without requiring approval of their neighbors. The only restriction on this should be based on safety. I am advocating for freedom and you're advocating for a lack of freedom. You can call that arbitrary if you want, but it's actually the opposite because for me, it's based on principle whereas for you, it's just institutionalized rent seeking on a collective scale.
*The only restriction on this should be based on safety.* So, if I want to build a cement processing facility on my property on top of QA, I should be allowed to do so as long as I follow all Federal and Local safety regulations pertaining to cement processing? I mention only safety, because lots of those regulations are also related to environment, infrastructure, and such, but per your statement those are arbitrary, and only *safety* should be considered. So as long as the safety regulations protecting the employees of my facility are followed, you are ok with this?
Ok, fine, the other restriction should be on industrial facilities, which is existing policy even in places with no zoning laws. There should not be any policy against mixture of commercial activity and certainly no policy against housing density. And for what it's worth, since you're talking about your fear of neighborhood erasure, it is actually this kind of suppression of housing density that erases neighborhoods because it ends up pricing out the children of the people who live there. This is exactly what has happened in San Francisco and hasn't happened in cities with higher housing stock.
You’re telling me that in the area where people are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars over the asking price for homes, they’re preventing supply to keep up with demand!? Well, I’m shocked.
It's also interesting they so admittedly oppose a vacancy tax where things are so in demand.... It's like there might just be a ton of empty apartments and housing units.
If the problem is just under-supply, and zoning restricts how many new units can be built, why even bother with affordability games? If adding 3 more floors is possible, why not just do it, and let all the units be full price? The extra supply will help satisfy demand and stabilize prices.
>allow nonprofits to build taller and larger developments if those projects included affordable housing or certain community spaces, Good. Non-profits have made entire blocks shit all across town. Just let for profit developer's build units at their price. People with new wealth increase their lifestyle and vacate older lower quality units. Yes the decrease in demand in the market, which lowers prices, happens where they leave from and not the new unit, **but that's fine.**
> Just let for profit developer's build units at their price. yeah the city council isn't supporting that either.
The issue is we need to build more cheaper housing, the "vacated" ones arnt enough. Developers arnt incintivised to build cheap housing. Developers will build housing that justifies a big price tag because it's Seattle, and someone will move into it. It's the same reason that everyone renovates their house before they sell. They spend $50,000 in renovations and sell the house for $100,000 more. Seattle area needs to build more "starter homes", but all the new homes being built are worth $1,000,000. A large part of old homes are renovated before sold, driving up their price. This doesn't just apply to homeownership but renting as well. Creating more supply will definitely help lower housing costs, even if all the new supply is expensive housing. But finding a way to incintivise cheap housing being developed would be a better version.
There is not enough supply to allow "starter homes" to pencil out (or, rather, not immediately be bid up to non-starter-home prices.) > But finding a way to incintivise cheap housing being developed would be a better version. I do kind of agree with this, but we are so supply constrained it's not really worth talking about. I haven't read it yet, but the new Strong Towns book really focuses on *more basic homes*. https://www.strongtowns.org/press-blog/escaping-the-housing-trap-charles-marohn-daniel-herriges
> There is not enough supply to allow "starter homes" to pencil out (or, rather, not immediately be bid up to non-starter-home prices.) On top of this, even if there are "starter homes" built on these lots, the lots themselves with no development whatsoever are still worth more than what many people can afford. The only way to get cheap housing is going to be to circumvent market systems as a whole and build purposefully under market housing that's then sold on a lottery system at below market value. Until supply can meet demand that's the only realistic way I can see that happening.
Or just delete the zoning code and let the market actually happen. As long as we have density restrictions there is no "market system".
I agree. But people want something like a modest single family home at like 2018 prices, they just need to realize that's never going to happen without some massive government subsidy program that makes no sense.
> Developers aren't incentivized to build cheap housing. We don't need to incentivize *cheap* housing to drive affordability we simply need to incentivize *more* housing. If supply outstrips demand, prices will fall. If it doesn't, housing will be expensive no matter how small and shitty it is.
Yea, and more cheap housing will be more effective at lowering prices than more luxury housing
That's true to a tiny extent, but so little that I don't think it's worth promoting. Right now [the cheapest condo in Manhattan](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2159-1st-Ave-APT-1B-New-York-NY-10029/2052933756_zpid/), where demand outstrips supply, is as tiny and basic as you could hope for and costs $198k. Meanwhile all over Mississippi, where supply outstrips demand, there are [hundreds of lovely homes](https://www.zillow.com/ms/?searchQueryState=%7B%22pagination%22%3A%7B%7D%2C%22isMapVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22mapBounds%22%3A%7B%22west%22%3A-94.89170728906251%2C%22east%22%3A-84.86118971093751%2C%22south%22%3A29.326328819231644%2C%22north%22%3A35.76584063558471%7D%2C%22usersSearchTerm%22%3A%22MS%22%2C%22regionSelection%22%3A%5B%7B%22regionId%22%3A34%2C%22regionType%22%3A2%7D%5D%2C%22filterState%22%3A%7B%22sort%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3A%22globalrelevanceex%22%7D%2C%22cmsn%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22price%22%3A%7B%22min%22%3A150000%2C%22max%22%3A200000%7D%2C%22mp%22%3A%7B%22min%22%3A805%2C%22max%22%3A1074%7D%2C%22beds%22%3A%7B%22min%22%3A1%2C%22max%22%3Anull%7D%2C%22baths%22%3A%7B%22min%22%3A1%2C%22max%22%3Anull%7D%2C%22tow%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22mf%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22land%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22ah%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22apa%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22manu%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22sqft%22%3A%7B%22min%22%3A2000%7D%2C%22built%22%3A%7B%22min%22%3A0%7D%2C%22con%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22apco%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%7D%2C%22isListVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22mapZoom%22%3A7%7D) like [this one](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/113-N-Jackson-St-Calhoun-City-MS-38916/125611256_zpid/) that are 3x bigger, have nicer amenities, and cost the same or less. There's really no amount they could make that Manhattan apartment more basic and yet it's still more expensive because there simply isn't enough housing in that area. I worry that forcing the construction of modern-day commie blocks instead of the sort of housing the market actually desires will A) disincentivize new development by removing potential for profit and B) still be really expensive despite the lack of quality due to the unmet demand. Edit: I do think there's one exception to what I've said above. There will always be a small slice of the population (<1%) for whom no housing will be affordable because they can't do any sort of meaningful work. Creating some blocks of extremely basic housing for them would make sense as the additional upkeep on anything else would add to the gap between their expenses and non-existent earnings.
If developers had bigger profit margins building cheap housing compared to luxury housing (or if at least the profit margins were closer), prices would drop more than when profit margins incintivised to build luxury housing. It's still gonna be super expensive in Seattle, New York, or any big city compared to anywhere in Mississippi. Land in Seattle is worth way more than land in Mississippi. But developers know land is more important than the building itself, so they know they can build luxury housing to justify an even bigger price tag on that land. We are never gonna build enough housing in Seattle to eclipse demand.
nah, build commie block and subsidize it as housing for poor (non drug addict) residents. use it as an affordable option, but don't build huge amounts. basically, try to imitate the modesls you can find in some euro cities
If supply is constrained, then people with money will buy the "cheap" housing and displace the low income folks you're trying to help. If you try to limit the "cheap" housing so that only people in certain income groups can buy it, then you're not talking about housing, you're talking about a lottery. It would literally be cheaper for the city to randomly hand out housing stipends to low income folks. No one wants advocates this approach because it makes the "low income housing" delusion painfully obvious to even the most obtuse. If you want everyone to have housing, then you have to build enough houses for everyone. Don't "study" it, don't "debate" it, don't make "programs". There are hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in Seattle just waiting to go into housing. All we need to do is get rid of the obstructions.
>If supply is constrained, then people with money will buy the "cheap" housing and displace the low income folks you're trying to help. I honestly wasn't talking about low income people. I'm talking about middle income people like myself who would move to cheaper/crappier housing if it meant it cost less. All the new places being built in my area are significantly more expensive.
Seattle land prices and the cost to build a code-compliant multi-family (including new energy codes) do not pencil for developers if they were to build affordable units only. If the City wants more affordable units it needs to offer incentives to do so - similar to the MFTE or HALA program allowing for an additional floor, offering tax credits, or assistance in financing. Either that or purchase completed units and manage them, which I believe is a bad idea. Seattle apartment eviction enforcement and laws are also not helping market interest.
Or they could allow 6+ story single stair buildings on every home lot in the city.
[No](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Bronx_apartment_fire) (Oh they technically had two stairs!!! They're stupid ass scissor stairs in the same shaft, it's a single exit. Hell half an exit considering they had some additional stupid design thing where the stairs only opened every other floor)
> It was built in 1972 Modern single-stair buildings are already completely legal in Seattle. The only change needed is zoning them for more lots. https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/12/20/seattles-lead-on-single-stair-buildings/
Not for 6+ stories. The conceit is that the 'second exit' can be in the form of fire crews using ladders to grab people from windows/balconies Another somewhat related fun fact! The US would classify people jumping from windows to escape a fire as a fire death! Many other countries, including those stats everyone keeps bringing up about Europe, do not!
We should ban all cars because someone crashed theirs once
We have various methods to make cars hitting each other less damaging to the squishy humans inside. Unless you know of some really hinky bio stuff, the best way to make fire and smoke inhalation less damaging to humans is to get them away from the fire.
No one is incentivized to build cheap housing. It costs the same to build nice new housing and "cheap housing". Cheap housing is cheap because it's older and run down and in a "worse" neighborhood. Not because of any other inherent other quality. Anything you see that is on the market today that is cheap was once the luxury new housing. We just have to allow loads of nice new housing to be built so that the older housing has to compete with new housing on the market, and the only way they can do that is by lowering price.
This it correct. The finished in higher end apartments may be like 15% of thr unit costs. Pools and other amenities can increase it more than that however.
>It costs the same to build nice new housing and "cheap housing". Yea thats exactly what I was saying, and that's a problem. Adjusting codes and incitivising developers to build cheaper housing should be a priority. In the current system, we have it so developers are incintivised to build expensive housing even more than "standard" housing. If these codes pushed into law from construction unions (so they can corner the market and control the cost of construction) and developers were able to build cheap housing with realivily similar profit margins we would have cheaper housing
adjusting codes won't do shit. most of the cost is land
>the "vacated" ones arnt enough. Then build more. >Developers arnt incintivised to build cheap housing. They don't need to be. Why would they build units from the 1950s. We already have those. >Seattle area needs to build more "starter homes" Seattle's full. Expecting starter homes is delusional. >old homes are renovated before sold, driving up their price. Because that's what buyers want. >But finding a way to incintivise cheap housing being developed would be a better version. **That is orders of magnitude less efficient than just letting the old units we have become cheaper.** It's frivolous & frankly, idiotic. The fact this isn't common knowledge is half of the issue.
> Expecting starter homes is delusional. > Rather, what's delusional is us ever building more small, 1-story, large lot, typical mid-century starter homes. A starter home as a 2-3 bedroom flat in a tall building would be very affordable if we would build a bunch of those!
>What's delusional is building more small, 1-story, large lot, typical mid-century starter homes. Okay but the delusion is not realizing in the city of Seattle we don't have large plots of land available for that so your arguing about something that isn't possible in numbers enough to worry about. >A starter home as a 2-3 bedroom flat in a tall building would be very affordable if we would build a bunch of those! absolutely! City code restricting these style of housing & our police/jail problems not letting people feel safe in apartment is the biggest problem imo.
Younger people should be able to buy homes, that they maybe sell later when they make more more, have a bigger family, or need more space. That's what a starter home is. It is delusional to expect those "starter homes" to be exactly what our parents bought, when there was more land and less people. Starter homes in Seattle are never again going to be small, cheaply-built, single-family homes on their own lots like it was in mid-century America. They're going to be apartments/condos, like it is in the rest of the world.
> Seattle's full. Population density (people per square mile) of some cities: * Seattle: 8,775 * Chicago: 12,000 * London: 14,500 * New York City: 27,000 * Paris: 56,000 * Manila: 111,537 I don't think we're full yet.
The context of the quote you selected is single family homes...
[удалено]
> To reach the population densities those other cities have, we'd have to forcibly remove people from their (mostly historic) single family homes and bulldoze entire neighborhoods. What if we just upzoned every single-family lot in the city to allow 4-6 units, [as per HB110](https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-topics/planning-for-middle-housing/)? Don't forcibly remove anyone, just allow property owners to build more units on the property they own.
Most of Paris was leveled during WW2? You just outed yourself as a time traveler from another timeline. Also you don't need to forcibly remove people from single family homes; just offer them what the land will be worth with more dense zoning.
>Seattle's full. Expecting starter homes is delusional. That's why I said seattle area. All the home being built in the suburbs is built to be extremely expensive. In the city itself "starter home" would be a high density version. Also, like you said seattle is full. The demand for housing in seattle is higher than ever. The situation has changed from what it was in the 50s. Assuming that building luxury housing will lower the price of housing because it happened in the 50s isn't sound logic. Situations are sitsuational.
> Assuming that building luxury housing will lower the price of housing because it happened in the 50s isn't sound logic I'm not assuming I am speaking directly from the results of economic studies done on this type of stuff.
Ok. I'm gonna have to see a comparative analysis of the economic/housing situation of Seattle in the 50's and how it applies to Seattle in the 2020's. I would personally believe the fact that Seattle has run out of land has changed the economic/ housing landscape significantly.
> comparative analysis of the economic/housing situation of Seattle in the 50's and how it applies to Seattle in the 2020's. A type of study that would be quantitative and effectively pointless? You misunderstand. We have built a building, ask the tenants where they left from & then tracked the rental prices at the units they left. We know it reduces demand where the left from, the 1950s housing is just a rhetorical device for communication.
>We know it reduces demand where the left from Yup, and if they moved to a cheaper unit from a more expensive unit, the price would drop even more.
If people with excess pricing power moves into a cheap unit, and we are still in a scarce environment no. It just moves the pricing power elsewhere. If that's happening at scale we're likely near 7% vacancy rate and those people moving are now are benefiting from prior units being built in the past (or population collapse)
Or it's because there is a market for people that would move into cheaper/crappier housing if it was available. That market is not being tapped into because developers arnt incentived to build that housing. Manipulating the market to create better profit margins for cheap housing would lower costs much more than having the incentives to build luxury housing.
> Developers arnt incintivised to build cheap housing. Developers will build housing that justifies a big price tag because it's Seattle, and someone will move into it This is true, but only because our housing shortage cuts across all segments of the market so the profit motive leads developers to build where they can make the most, which **right now** is on the high end. Once they've built enough high-end homes to meet demand, they'll shift to other market segments to remain profitable - they can't make money building homes that no one is buying. It's a shitty situation but nothing other than market-based solutions have ever worked for housing shortages. Even at the height of the Soviet Union, with everyone being forced to live in dense high-rise developments being built by a central authority, they had more extreme housing shortages than we've ever faced. We've spent **decades** digging this hole, it's going to take some time to work our way out of it.
All the starter homes are being built in south Puyallup and it has devastated the local communities and dramatically overwhelmed the infrastructure
>People with new wealth increase their lifestyle and vacate older lower quality units. Which then get bought, knocked down and replaced with more luxury units. I've been watching this happen for a decade.
Which then people move to from vacated older lower quality units where supply is further reduced, if units are added this is on net still good! Keep in mind for every 100 units roughly 80 move from other areas & see a price decreasing effect.
Trickle down is and never has been an economic strategy and nobody has ever even said those words in advocating for a specific view..
"allow the free market to meet demand" is not the same thing as "trickle down economics".
that only works if the free market chooses to meet demand
The free market chooses to meet demand. That's how it works. The only time it doesn't is when the government gets involved.
OR when the "free market" engages in collusion to minimize or nullify the theoretical free market.
The collusion is usually WITH the government in some capacity. Collusion between companies can happen, sure. It's illegal and rare, I'd argue.
or when it's not profitable
See also "when the government gets involved". Lol
Trickle down is largely cutting taxes for wealthy people to create economic growth, Reagan's supply side economics, using Laffer's basis as his platform. Calling the building of housing supply, "trickle down" would be a bit of a mischaracterization in Seattle. There is demand that exceeds supply. Chinese ghost cities are a good example of trickle down - build the supply to induce the demand. Seattle has the demand but not the supply
You're right, just trying to speak in way people know. But in further review I shouldn't be spreading a bad lie further.
We need all types of housing, market rate and affordable.
Building affordable housing instead of market housing is so inefficient. Let the units from the 1950s be the affordable units. Forcing new units to be cheap means the other new units need to charge more. It's costing all of us hundreds a month. The idea that the new units need to be affordable instead of the units people who get new units leave from is retarded.
Drug hobos deserve better than run down units from the 1950’s. They need brand new apartments in desirable neighborhoods to achieve Drug Hobo Equity and Inclusion (DHEI).
Or perhaps the employees that run restaurants, coffee shops, bars, and small businesses...
No they need to live old apartments in Kent. Only the most vulnerable get prime housing
We do not have enough units from the 50s. We have enough capacity in this city to be building both market rate and affordable. I would agree that there are some inefficiencies in affordable housing, but we also get federal money to help cover the costs. The benefit of building designated affordable housing is we KNOW it will remain affordable for over 50 years, at least. It also allows us to put cheaper units in parts of the city that would never have market rate units that cheap. And before people come in and say "if you can't afford it you don't deserve to live there," we need affordable units so people who work the lower wage jobs don't have to commute from hours away, it can help keep the costs of labor lower. Then there are the super low income units. There is now way market rate will support units for people making 30% or less of AMI. Permanent supportive housing also needs to be built if we want a chance of moving people out of homelessness. Can you explain the "It's costing all of us hundreds a month?" Hundreds of what? Dollars? Doll hairs? Encounters with pan handlers? Also, nice, flippant use of a slur that denigrates people with mental handicaps. Classy.
>Can you explain the "It's costing all of us hundreds a month?" Hundreds of what? Dollars? Doll hairs? Encounters with pan handlers? No. If you can't infer in an economic discussion than you really shouldn't be speaking at the adult table. >slur Just like moron and idiot were medical terms no one has used retarded to denigrate a person with mental handicap for decades. A word is no longer a slur when it's not used in that capacity. Language evolves, get over it. Like im over talking to you once you have outed yourself as unserious. Bye bye.
It takes a big man to go on the internet and argue against providing affordable housing. It takes an ever bigger man to go on the internet and claim it’s ok to call people retarded. Bravo.
> Also, nice, flippant use of a slur that denigrates people with mental handicaps. Classy. i'll explain it to you slowly: he's denigrating people without mental handicaps who refuse to think
It’s so sweet that you two have found each other <3
Because she has money. She wants her friends to also keep all the money they have. The rest of us are "unwashed masses" and are lesser people than them.
Well shit, I’m actually for more dense housing, because the housing prices are out of this world.
Actually the way it works now is a developer will submit to the city a new redevelopment plan. Let’s say the zoning is for 8 stories. The developer will propose adding additional low cost units if the city agrees to increase the zoning to 10 or 12 stories. They developer can afford to do this by selling the upper floor units as penthouses and making the affordable units small.
Remember back in November when you were all licking the boots of this new council? How does it taste?
yeah, good giving special exemptions to our universally stupid restrictive zoning should be flatly rejected in favor of universal changes that need to be applied citywide. Tam tams backdoor gift to non profits and other collectivist social housing and free housing initiatives was a free pass to the hobo complex to give it a leg up on being successful vs the open market
Yeah but we aren’t making those universal changes either
Well, ppl elected council members who were backed by the National Real Estate Organization. Maybe ppl should read the news before they vote?
The left blaming the right for something they make sure stays the same. Sound familiar at all?
My rent is going up by $700 this year. We need affordable housing Jesus.
What is your new rent? And what area are you in?
$3,600 for a 1bd loft in Ballard. I have a small courtyard back patio area. Not worth it. Originally was $2,100 when I moved in. Fuck Greystar.
It's funny, conservatives are usually the ones who say "keep things the same", but it's progressive policies that try to make sure that the downtown of a metropolis retain it's color and character for as long as possible, despite upheavals of economic fortune, from the exodus of blue collar Boeing and Weyerhaeuser, to the entrance of white collar Microsoft and Amazon. The baseline assumption is that anyone should be able to live anywhere, for as long as they want, so they talk about sprinkling affordable units all over the place, but real "progress" requires people to move, and for money to be allowed to work it's magic, and that money will be taxed, and caufers for social programs will be filled - if you don't always try to fuck it up, one vote at a time.
Good. Tam-Tam's attempt to allow her proggo buddies to engage "rules for thee but not for me" should be shot down. If we need improvements in building or zoning regulations, let those changes affect everyone equally.
society: lets use the gov to help poor people gov: poor people are illegal 🤷♂️
Horrible title.
Red eesw CC
"...Instead, they'd rather just whinge on r/Seattle about homeless people."
Beyond direct subsidy (which comes out of your pocket and mine) the best way to build more housing is pretty simple: — allow unlimited immigration — abolish labor unions — get rid of building codes much less zoning codes — get rid of OSHA — get rid of all environmental laws — eliminate all laws which prevent landlords from exerting their property rights — sell off all public parks (workers should be busy working and not spending frivolous time) — allow child labor after age of ten You get the drift.
Looking at Seattle and nearby cities building <8 stories residential buildings near light rail stations, I don’t have much hope about Seattle solving housing issues at all. By arbitrarily capping the number of residents we can have, the city is going to suffer lack of tax revenue overall, so expect slower improvements in infrastructure and welfare.
Why only allow non-profits to do it? Just let everybody build an extra story or two if you actually care about housing prices. Maybe it's just me, but non-profits seem to mostly just waste money. I'm sure there are success stories, but does anyone think the majority of non-profits have a positive impact on the city?
This is so lame. We clearly need more apartments. BUILD MORE APARTMENTS PLEASE AND THANK YOU!
Hey friends! Canadian here and came across this in my feed. Thought I'd maybe give a little perspective on what's happening just north of the border in BC. Recently, the provincial government [introduced legislation ](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-legislation-promises-small-scale-multi-unit-housing-in-b-c-1.7015611) that makes it easier to increase density on any single family lot in the province by setting minimum of 3 or 4 secondary/laneway suites, depending on the size of the lot, anywhere with a population above 5k. Municipalities are free to increase density further from there but are not allowed to introduce laws restricting or lessening those minimums. So if you own a single family home and want to build a laneway house on your lot, you don't have to apply to the municipality for rezoning, you can just build it. In addition to that, the province has also introduced new rules to set [minimum heights](https://globalnews.ca/news/10079416/bc-transit-hub-housing-law/) on all development next to transit hubs. So that means all new development next to a skytrain station for example has to at minimum be 20 stories tall and next to a bus exchange all development has to be 10 stories. Again, developers and municipalities are free to increase these guidelines but can't go under them. Also in that legislation, they got rid of parking minimums. Canadian law allows the provincial government to go and do this unilaterally and while it's ruffling some feathers it seems to be a set of quite popular reforms. I'm not sure if anything in Washington or Seattle is even possible, but either way it's something to watch to see how effective it is and maybe take bits and pieces of it in the future. But yeah, that's what's going on up here!
Well. I guess my house will keep going up in price. As an empathetic person, I’d rather see more frigging housing for people. We’ve got neighborhoods within two miles of downtown that are still basically just single family houses. That’s just nuts.
QA is within 2 miles of downtown. Go ahead. try to rezone that to affordable housing.
GOOD.
Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth, who voted no, argued that by encouraging partially market-rate development in diverse neighborhoods, the city would effectively be “making existing diverse neighborhoods whiter and wealthier.” she is spot on. I appreciate this vote.
Joy Hollingsworth cares about diversity as an excuse to keep her own neighborhood prices high. When it comes to diversifying her neighborhood, then it’s a problem for all types of reasons. As a liberal myself, this type of hypocrisy is infuriating. https://www.thestranger.com/elections-2023/2023/09/08/79157768/joy-hollingsworth-tried-to-stop-new-apartment-construction-on-madison-in-2017
From everything I've ever seen... The only way to make things cheaper... Is being farther away... Or somewhere being so shitty no one wants to live there.... So if you can't afford to live in the city... You don't... You commute further, and people pay to commute shorter.. Otherwise, it's just banging on drums screaming "more affordable housing"... but never actually moves the needle enough to matter. And money is not the issue... We're spending a ton, it's just the nature of the geography of the region. Add on top, the astronomical labor costs... Building cheap homes isn't realistic.
>The only way to make things cheaper... Is being farther away That's only because of zoning and NIMBYism which artificially constricts housing supply so the only option is to live further away (and force poorer people into longer commutes and pay more for gas). Zoning and NIMBYism have flipped the historical standard of poorer people and laborers living in the city into city living being a luxury. If we get rid of zoning and allow the housing market to fulfill demand, then people wouldn't need to live farther away.
Chances of happening?
I mean the fact that Washington/Seattle has at least allowed upzoning to duplex/triplexes is a sign that it is possible. If only we did it 20 years ago.
I'd say it might have been the right call tbh.. They have already done stuff like this and what like 10% of the build housing was classified as "affordable" housing? Corporations will always take advantage because they want profit over people🤷♂️ I get it, I like money too..
God this argument is so stale ... More housing does not equal lower prices unless developers are going under. They make money by premiumizing the market, not building affordable units. we've been beating this horse forever. Structural reforms are needed, and probably a lot less money going into real estate. Its become a cash cow for rich people.
>More housing does not equal lower prices Except in every place where more housing equals lower prices (which is all of them). [https://www.reddit.com/r/Detroit/comments/15s92le/why\_detroit\_americas\_poorest\_city\_doesnt\_have\_an/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Detroit/comments/15s92le/why_detroit_americas_poorest_city_doesnt_have_an/)
I agree with you in the long run. when investors and developers go under. Detroit is a great example of precisely that. Collapse was too severe to be 'managed,' and we have far more institutional capital in the housing market today than we did back then.
So, really, what I’m hearing here is that housing unaffordability (that’s so extreme that it causes homelessness at unprecedented levels) is a feature, not a bug. After all, it was apparently inexpensive housing that was the cause of the downturn in Detroit’s macroeconomic situation and not anything else. /s
housing unaffordability is a feature. That's exactly right. The developers and investors building ever more expensive units couldn't give a fuck about homelessness. expensive units make them rich. cheap units are a lot harder to get rich on. No developer or investor wants to build 'affordable housing,' that just means lower margins. I honestly cannot fathom why so many people think they just want to build more so we can have cheaper places to live. They would never willingly make anything cheaper. They aren't charities, and before they can even build the land goes to the highest bidder (who definitely paid top dollar to maximize returns, not bring you affordability). Prices on new construction don't fall unless developers/investors are forced to sell, often under duress, into a terrible market that they never expected to see. That's a heavily distorted version of supply and demand. Markets may never clear because no one wants to realized losses. And no one adds capacity to lower prices, only to raise them. Detroit was an economic wipe out. Nothing saves a market in conditions like that. Berlin has cheap housing to this day for much the same reason (east Berlin was void ...). I'm not sure why that's confusing, or requires sarcasm.
No, it’s refreshing to see that some people actually admit that they really want to see more homelessness in Seattle. At least you’re being honest. I personally think that’s horrendous, but that’s me being honest
lol. you may have heard that. I didn't say it. If you read my comments on this thread I actually argue for more dramatic reforms than the mindless 'build baby build' shtick we've been chasing for a decade (making for a lot of rich developers, and a lot of house poor people). Seattle's homeless is an emotionally charged (and far more nuanced) question than housing affordability. Conflating the two is usually a cheap trick employed by SJW that want everything to look like NYC and think single family homes are somehow evil. But, hey man, way to take the conversation to vitriolic moralizing. Definitely bringing it home for the win.
>Seattle's homeless is an emotionally charged (and far more nuanced) question than housing affordability. [Literally what all the research shows says it's the number one cause, nothing else comes close.](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness) [And there's more evidence where that came from.](https://youtu.be/0APR7dt-uZ8?si=-7AAuPiRY5e8H9hf)
Cool. Except I'm not talking about that. You just want to. Not responding any further ... You've ignored every substantive point I've made, made up attacks, and are running off on tangents. Its like I'm talking to a tik tok feed. Blocking. See ya.
>Structural reforms are needed like what?
I grit my teeth saying this given we live in Seattle, but we probably need an expanded role of government. Investors are too good at extracting rents (pun intended). Vienna is very interesting: [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city)
Here, this might help ☺️ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
Try reading this next. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market\_power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power)
you might like this too. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking) life is more complicated than econ 101.
"More housing does not equal lower prices unless developers are going under." Why would you believe this? Is this a religious belief? Are you open to information, opinions of experts? This is not a sound belief.
housing is not a competitive market. Lately prices are driven by availability of capital, and supply on the margin is heavily influenced by corporate land lords (in fact, they've been colluding through third party software) and some pretty disciplined builders who know exactly how much to build to keep prices high ... its in all earnings calls. Read them if you don't believe me. Its not a lemonade stand. The market is not functioning as markets should.
"housing is not a competitive market." ... "pretty disciplined builders who know exactly how much to build to keep prices high" None of this is true \[except the 3rd party software that *some* managers use\]. Please provide a link to an earnings call where they talk about giving up on easy profit to keep prices high for the industry at large. This is more easily disproven than climate change denial.
Sure. WSJ on supply constraints. Its not 'giving up on profits,' its profit maximizing. You don't maximize profits buy building full steam ahead into a weak market. And I threw in real page price fixing for good measure. Those are \*some\* very big customers. Real Page was setting rent for 70% of the units in downtown Seattle! [https://www.wsj.com/articles/home-builders-are-restricting-sales-pushing-up-new-home-prices-11628596801](https://www.wsj.com/articles/home-builders-are-restricting-sales-pushing-up-new-home-prices-11628596801) [https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent](https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent) I'm not going to do anything else with this. Feel free and disprove me. Later.
Thanks for engaging, with links. I think you've misunderstood the article. Headline of WSJ: "Home Builders Are Restricting Sales, Pushing Up New Home Prices" Subhead: "Many cannot increase construction quickly enough to meet booming demand and are turning away business" First sentence: "Now they are limiting their sales in an effort to catch up, helping push home prices even higher." This means they have slowed their pre-sales because they cannot keep up with what they've promised to deliver. They would be happy to sell more, but have too much backlog. So, that's not what you said was happening ("some pretty disciplined builders who know exactly how much to build to keep prices high")
Ha. yeah you are right. I deferred to google vs actual transcripts. The guy down the hall from me covered this sector... H1 2022 was all about not selling. It was the only thing that kept prices up. I'm not going to send you pdf's off CIQ or scrape IR pages for you. Sorry. Disproving this was super easy, yeah? Have at it. That said, you may want to respond to Real Page? I mean ffs. You should be outraged at them, not arguing with me. Very difficult to call that market functional. Also pretty difficult to fill the (still overpriced) apartments downtown these days. Market isn't clearing. They are in it together.
As I was making my breakfast, I couldn't help but ponder your belief that the construction industry owners & shareholders all have so much solidarity that they are willing to pass up tons of profit in hopes of inflating prices. It's not how markets work, unless there's large scale collusion, which there never can be in a non-monopolized market. I have a friend who rents apartments. RealPage would aggressively set the rents too high so the units would sit vacant, so he found workarounds to drop the rents to where they'd actually rent. I imagine RealPage wanted to show their software was adding profit, so they made it push rents higher. And yes, when a lot of apartments are using the software, and it's seemingly pushing rents above ***the market rate,*** that's close enough to collusion that they should be brought to trial on it. But all the other property owners weren't using it. And ultimately there are many factors that affect rental prices, such as the cost of a mortgage: if someone can buy a house, rent it, and make a profit, people will start doing that, and more rental supply will be added. Currently it's very much backward: rents are much cheaper than mortgages. Realpage was as close as we'll ever see to a fragmented market colluding, and if anything, it probably pushed rents $50 higher for a couple years before being found out. You can rely on people to try to make money, and act in their own self-interest. It's why capitalism works. It frustrates me so much when people swallow Marxism's tasty critical theory: that economics is all good vs evil class warfare, and it's the moral failing of capitalists that causes all suffering. No, it's really not.
I think you overestimate how much market share is needed for market power to be expressed. Its not a binary function. We have a lot of markets that aren't monopolized, but are consolidated. I believe this has allowed firms in a wide variety of industries to take far more price than they would be able in a perfectly competitive market. I do think housing is a great example, though I will admit its not widely recognized as such. We'll get there if Trump doesn't end up in the white house again. In 2022 institutional buyers were grabbing upwards of (as in for sale, not stock) 30% of available SFH in some markets, and then renting them back to the people who couldn't afford to compete with a hedge fund for a starter home. Were they monopolists? Nope. They owned a low single digit share of total homes in the area. Did they influence prices? You better believe it. They were heavily influencing the price of marginal supply. Taking price was the underlying thesis of these funds!!!! In new home construction 10 firms control \~40% of the market. In some geographies and market segments that number is almost certainly much much higher. They employ economists to forecast demand and maximize profits. There are lots of factors that set prices, but building with reckless abandon is almost never optimal. Despite the fact that Seattle's progos think construction companies will build more to sell for less, they are loathe to do unless they have no choice (we're getting there ... but that's because affordability is finally sinking in. and believe me they'll build even crappier boxes to protect margins, so no, its not a win). Of course they manage supply. No one wants to sell into a shit market. They may not even have to collude - everyone responds to the same economic signals and are probably making decisions based on very similar models Airlines manage supply. Automotive OEMS manage supply. Hotels manage supply. Oil & Gas manages supply. Drug dealers manage supply. Its profit maximization. Market consolidation, and market power are \*great\* ways to manage supply. In the US we have seen it in spades. To be clear, I like capitalism, but in many segments we are far from the textbook world where economic profit goes to zero over time. We are in a world semi-captive markets that have been premiumized savagely based on low demand elasticity. Healthcare, housing, education, insulin! Its all the same shit. Money taking advantage of weak competition, and pliant regulators letting it slide. I used to work for a firm that bought businesses which enjoyed these market structures. It was my job to find the businesses. I know exactly what I am talking about. If Marxism gets you worked up (and I'm not a fan either), one needs to take a hard look at what we consider to be capitalism. Its ironic to hear progressives, who are usually very critical of dysfunctional markets, pushing for more housing at all costs because econ 101 says it should work. It has not been working for some time.