A small thing, but acknowledging photography sources is important. "Reddit" hardly gives credit to the photographer or even publisher. This is even more the case for for "Google Images", which is an agglomeration of images taken from most websites in existence. (Though the real publisher there, "Google Streetview," is at least part of the same company in this instance).
Imagine taking a paragraph or more of text from this article, quoting it in another, and referencing the text to "Substack" or "ChatGPT".
In the last 10 years they've more than doubled the number of housing units in my neighborhood. Even with the rent decreases in the news, class C apartments that were asking $1400 / mo 8 years ago are still asking $2100 today.
There's a stubborn insistence that building more only helps. But housing has a tinge of being a Veblen good. The people who are into paying $2700 / month for that 2 bdrm with the rooftop pool ( note; I'm in a cheap city this is high by our standards ) or nearly a million for that 3 story townhouse next to Publix seem to attract others who feel they need the same thing, the same place. Hence those $1400 apartments go up 50% despite the supply doubling.
It's not an argument against building more. It's a plea to find policy to address how this affects people who can't afford those new prices. Ya know, like the retired postal worker living in Atlanta's Old 4th Ward that can no longer afford property taxes let alone groceries.
BTW - I am looking forward to reading this piece and digesting it again. A lot of good stuff.
You can only suppress rising rents to the extent that you can suppress rising incomes. Building more, as a lot of high quality academic evidence shows, is at best a modest brake on rising prices, and primarily a cyclical, not a secular phenomenon.
A small thing, but acknowledging photography sources is important. "Reddit" hardly gives credit to the photographer or even publisher. This is even more the case for for "Google Images", which is an agglomeration of images taken from most websites in existence. (Though the real publisher there, "Google Streetview," is at least part of the same company in this instance).
Imagine taking a paragraph or more of text from this article, quoting it in another, and referencing the text to "Substack" or "ChatGPT".
In the last 10 years they've more than doubled the number of housing units in my neighborhood. Even with the rent decreases in the news, class C apartments that were asking $1400 / mo 8 years ago are still asking $2100 today.
There's a stubborn insistence that building more only helps. But housing has a tinge of being a Veblen good. The people who are into paying $2700 / month for that 2 bdrm with the rooftop pool ( note; I'm in a cheap city this is high by our standards ) or nearly a million for that 3 story townhouse next to Publix seem to attract others who feel they need the same thing, the same place. Hence those $1400 apartments go up 50% despite the supply doubling.
It's not an argument against building more. It's a plea to find policy to address how this affects people who can't afford those new prices. Ya know, like the retired postal worker living in Atlanta's Old 4th Ward that can no longer afford property taxes let alone groceries.
BTW - I am looking forward to reading this piece and digesting it again. A lot of good stuff.
You can only suppress rising rents to the extent that you can suppress rising incomes. Building more, as a lot of high quality academic evidence shows, is at best a modest brake on rising prices, and primarily a cyclical, not a secular phenomenon.
The government underwrites home mortgages
giving a cushion of security
which allows Lords of the Land to expect high rent fees.
There is plenty of unoccupied property .
Why would an owner even want a tenant if the real estate appreciation is rapid !
The tenant even becomes a liability.
London's social housing demolitions aren't always supported by tenants. See https://www.architectsforsocialhousing-design.co.uk/ for some alternatives to demolition.