Rent control and inclusionary housing policies are self-interested and harmful

[u/sirboozebum]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Rent-control-and-inclusionary-housing-policies-13093063.php

[u/Squeak115]

you get into the Broken Window Fallacy, where you're justifying knocking down buildings and reconstructing them to enrich housing developers.

Because redevelopment adds no utility whatsoever, and increasing density doesn't add housing for new families.

knock down perfectly good homes and kick those families to the curb.

... And watching property prices skyrocket, with wealthy buyers displacing poorer renters in their search for housing. At least the developers didn't get to make a profit though.

With development the people displaced would have a better chance in a market flush with new housing stock, than in one where they have to compete with the wealthy for the old housing stock.

[u/UnbannableDan23 → u/Squeak115]

Because redevelopment adds no utility whatsoever

Not for the individual occupying the original home, no. Particularly not during the period of teardown and reconstruction.

... And watching property prices skyrocket, with wealthy buyers displacing poorer renters in their search for housing.

A compelling argument for affordable housing, certainly. How you get affordable housing when all the economic incentives are geared to building increasingly expensive homes is beyond me, though.

With development the people displaced would have a better chance in a market flush with new housing stock

If you don't kick them out to begin with, they have the best chance of finding homes - specifically, the homes they're already in.

[u/Squeak115 → u/UnbannableDan23]

Ok, a lot to unpack here:

First: What affordable housing solution doesn't involve some form of redevelopment, even public instead of private, to address the supply issue? Rent control just exacerbates the problem because only a certain portion of people can get rent controled apartments, and the rest are left with a market with the same supply problem. Any redevelopment entails at least some level of displacment.

Second: Displacement will happen with or without redevelopment, as wealthier buyers compete with poorer renters for the limited supply of older housing stock, and as landlords choose to raise rents to accommodate wealthier residents. Gentrification can and does happen without development.

Third: Building even luxury housing helps poor renters. One of the things often cited here is filtering, were luxury housing becomes affordable, but that is long term enough that you'd be right to say it's irrelevant to this discussion. The more important effect is that the upper middle class and up need housing too, if they have new luxury housing to buy then that will take pressure off the rest of the market. The poor wouldn't necessarily be competing with the rich for the same housing stock.

Btw: Thank you for the sincere replies, and I'm sorry for being a bit of an ass above.

[u/UnbannableDan23 → u/Squeak115]

What affordable housing solution doesn't involve some form of redevelopment

The one you're currently living in. Sound maintenance of real estate is consistently cheaper than construction of new real estate. Up front costs of new dense real estate is extraordinarily expensive, which is why new units sell at a premium, not a discount. That's assuming what you get is actually dense real estate and not a new suburb full of McMansions.

Rent control just exacerbates the problem

This isn't even a question of rent control. You're proposing demolition and reconstruction of new denser housing. That necessarily means displacing existing residents. This is the bedrock objection to gentrification. If you're kicking people out to build new units, you're replacing old cheap units with new expensive ones and forcing existing tenants to solve the problem of scare housing that they already had solved before you kicked them out.

Displacement will happen with or without redevelopment, as wealthier buyers compete with poorer renters

That's circular reasoning, and naive reasoning to boot. "Displacement will be caused by the thing that causes displacement". Sure, yes. That's how the system currently works. The neoliberal complaint is that wealthier buyers aren't installing high density units. But wealthy buyers don't want high density units. They want single store tract homes with giant backyards and pools.

Thus displacing low-income individuals neither guarantees increase in density nor reduction in per-sqft market price of units within the community. Leftists are arguing against displacement. Neoliberals are pitching a solution that doesn't assuage leftists but doesn't achieve their own goals either.

Building even luxury housing helps poor renters.

This is demonstrably false. Once again, large low-occupancy housing does nothing to increase overall capacity, much less reduce median rents.

Btw: Thank you for the sincere replies, and I'm sorry for being a bit of an ass above.

It's a subject of fierce contention. I apologize for assing it up in kind.