What would be the effects of VP Harris' housing plan?

Here is the plan:

•  expand rental assistance for veterans and other low-income renters, 
•  increase housing supply for people experiencing homelessness, 
•  enforce fair housing laws, 
•  hold corporate landlords accountable [for charging high prices?]. 
•  provide up to $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers 
•  First-generation homeowners – those whose parents did not own homes – would receive more generous assistance.

WSJ Analysis:

• The law of supply and demand dictates that an increase in demand without a commensurate increase in supply will result in higher prices.
• As of August, the overall supply of homes for sale was 3.7 months’ worth. For houses in lower price tiers, that number drops to 2.4 months. Sellers’ markets create upward price pressure on home prices, which grows more powerful when demand is further stimulated. Ms. Harris’s policy would do just that, boosting demand by giving buyers more spending money.

My take is that the real barrier to increasing housing supply is not money but rather the restrictive zoning (see Nice Summary of the Affordable Housing Crisis) but, politically, restrictive zoning is very popular.  

The WSJ is right to point out that increasing demand will exacerbate the very problem VP Harris says she wants to address.  She can begin by listening to her economists, if she has any.  

Marin residents say they care about affordable housing but don't act like it

Housing prices are prohibitively expensive because we enact strict zoning that prevents other people from building more of it. These restrictions on new supply drive up the price of housing. No where is this more evident than in Tiburon, just north of San Francisco, with its own temperate micro climate and beautiful views of all three bridges across the Bay. When owners tried to develop a property to create 43 single family homes, the project was stalled for decades by lawsuits filed by neighbors.  Recently the county purchased the property under the pretext that it would "preserve open space."

Jenny Silva of Sausalito, a volunteer pro-housing watchdog who's been monitoring the creation of housing elements in Marin, said ... "there’s a housing crisis, not an open-space crisis." She noted that 31% of respondents to the county’s 2023 Community Survey said housing should be the No. 1 priority, ... Silva called it “frustrating” that Marin’s latest budget then dedicated more than twice as much to open-space expenditures than to its affordable-housing trust: $11.23 million versus $5 million.

BOTTOM LINE:  Marin residents say they care about housing but don't act like it. Instead, they have "revealed a preference" for open space which increases their own property values. But they are not the only ones (see previous blog posts on housing).  

Rents fall ==> new supply falling ==> rents will increase

 WSJ:

Apartment Construction Is Slowing, and Investors Are Betting on Higher Rents 

For more than a year, apartment renters in many cities have been getting some relief from price increases because of the enormous amount of new supply being delivered by developers.

Now, big investors are betting that downward pressure on rents from new supply is coming to an end and the market is shifting back in landlords’ favor. At the heart of their reasoning: the critical metric of new construction starts, which began slowing last year and now are falling even further.

Apartment developers are stepping on the brakes, especially compared with the building frenzy in the early years of the pandemic. Across the country some rental-construction projects are getting stalled, as developers struggle to obtain the financing needed to complete them. Other investors are pivoting to more lucrative alternatives.

...

Most apartment developers today build high-end units for middle- and upper-income households, which have little impact on the affordable-housing shortage. Lower-cost rentals—the kind most in need by low- and moderate-income households—remain scarce and are rarely built without a government subsidy.

Why is housing inventory for sale increasing in TX and FL?

From CalculatedRisk.com:

Q: What is causing the sharp increase in inventory in the South, especially in Florida and Texas?

Inventory is up sharply, and already above 2019 levels in many parts of Florida. I think the primary reason is the lack of affordable homeowners’ insurance because of destructive storms and rising sea levels due to climate change. A year ago I wrote: The Long-Term Housing and Population Shift. I noted that a combination of water availability and widespread use of AC drove the growth in the West and South over the last 60 years. However, climate change might make some areas further north more desirable. I think we are starting to see the start of that trend

More rent hikes coming?

 

From WSJ:

The least affordable home-sales market in decades is compelling more renters to stay put. Large apartment owners say fewer renters are moving out to buy homes than ever before, put off by record home prices, limited inventory and higher mortgage rates.

Why are quarterbacks taken so early in the draft?

 WSJ:

Since 2011, the NFL has had a rookie wage scale, which allocates relatively affordable salaries to each draft pick regardless of position. That means taking a rookie at one of the more valuable positions has the chance to generate enormous surplus value. It’s why, for instance, quarterbacks on rookie deals are so advantageous—teams can get the most from them before they re-sign on contracts that could cost upward of $50 million a year.

In other words, quarterbacks salaries are fixed further below expected value than other positions, so they generate more expected profit for the team.

Note how NFL owners negotiated with current players and came up an agreement that screwed the only people not at the table, future players (college kids).  Nice metaphor for the human condition. 

 Ironically, I am still disappointed by this kind of self-interested behavior. 

HT: Lamar

I sent Nashville's Mayor a copy of Chapter 8, "Understanding [housing] Markets."

Here's why:  "Nashville voters ... are especially looking to Metro leaders to address the city's affordable housing problem."    

If the mayor and the council honestly look the cause of the crisis, they will find it is caused by zoning restrictions (see previous post) that limit supply.  With 100 people moving to Nashville each day, the only thing that can adjust is price.  

The standard feel-good response is affordable housing mandates on new construction which raises the cost of new construction and limits supply--exacerbating the very problem it is designed to alleviate.  (See What Nashville can Learn from NYC: Affordable Housing Mandates Reduce the Supply of Affordable Housing.)

...mandates reduce the profitability of new development.  This will lead to less new development, or developers will substitute towards smaller developments, not subject to the mandate.  In the former case, fewer new developments would be built; in the latter, lower-density development would take place.  Either way, this represents a decrease in supply.  A decrease in supply would increase price, exacerbating the very problem--lack of affordable housing--that it was designed to ameliorate.   (And don't forget that density is green.)

What Nashville can Learn from NYC: Affordable Housing mandates reduce the supply of affordable housing

The Nashville City Council is considering requiring that a certain percentage of units in new residential developments be priced as affordable. The mandates would apply to multi-unit developments bigger than five units.

While this may sound good, lets think clearly about its effects: mandates reduce the profitability of new development.  This will lead to less new development, or developers will substitute towards smaller developments, not subject to the mandate.  In the former case, fewer new developments would be built; in the latter, lower-density development would take place.  Either way, this represents a decrease in supply.  A decrease in supply would increase price, exacerbating the very problem--expensive housing--that it was designed to ameliorate.   (And don't forget that density is green.)

Housing markets are also subject to what is known as "filtering," apartment rents tend to go down as the apartment building ages.  So today's expensive housing is tomorrow's affordable housing.  This implies that a reduction in the supply of expensive housing today, will reduce the supply of affordable housing tomorrow.

These kinds of zoning restrictions are popular because they drive the price of existing housing above replacement cost, benefiting Nashville's homeowners. But they come at the expense of renters and new residents. As the Financial Times put it:

They are the ransom that renters and recent buyers must pay to existing homeowners – whose homes the rules protect – for use of an artificially limited stock of housing. So severe have those restrictions become that the value of the ransom runs into the trillions. 

Wealth of this kind is far more destructive than the alleged sins of the top 1 per cent. It is wealth created not by improving our living standards but by making them worse; by building too few houses in London and San Francisco, not too many. It is not earned by skill or effort. It is taken directly from the pockets of some – the young, especially those who were born poor – and transferred to others via political regulations on building. This is not wealth, this is plunder. 

The effects of affordable housing are similar to price gouging laws that in Mississippi prevented generators from reaching the Gulf Coast after Katrina. Similarly, affordable housing mandates will prevent new housing from reaching Nashville.  The market wants to help, so let it.

OK, if mandates won't do it, how do we increase the supply of affordable housing in Nashville?  Here I think Nashville could learn something from New York.  In New York, the affordable mandates are triggered only by a relaxation of zoning.  For example, a developer buys up a block of houses and asks the planning commission to re-zone it for a multi-unit apartment complex.  In exchange for the zoning change, the developer agrees to set aside some of the units for lower income tenants.

The crucial difference is that in NY, affordable mandates are triggered only by development that increases supply.  In contrast, the proposed change in Nashville would reduce supply.

[REPOST from 2015] 

Why are payers (insurance companies) buying providers (clinics, pharmacies)?

Economist via MarginalRevolution: Because Vertical Integration circumvents regulation

With little room left to grow in their core businesses, and trustbusters blocking attempts to buy direct rivals, the [payer] oligopolists have been expanding into other bits of the health-care supply chain [by buying providers]. Besides adding to the top line, such vertical integration is juicing margins. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 limited the profits of health insurers to between 15% and 20% of collected premiums, depending on the size of the health plan. But it imposed no restrictions on what physicians or other intermediaries can earn. The law created an incentive for insurers to buy clinics, pharmacies and the like, and to steer customers to them rather than rival providers. The strategy channels revenue from the profit-capped insurance business to uncapped subsidiaries, which in theory could let insurers keep more of the premiums paid by patients.

The payers probably figured this out by reading Chapter 23 on "regulatory avoidance." 

Where has US housing supply grown?

Housing supply increased in low density suburbs ("Sub low"), like Nashville, but not much in in high-density suburbs ("Sub high) or in central cities (CC high or CC low).  Supply is limited in these other three areas by zoning, so price has increased instead.

From Journal of Economic Perspectives:

Low-density suburbs have grown much faster than all other types of neighborhoods, accounting for 78 percent of the growth in housing units in the set of neighborhoods observed in 1980. However, home price growth has been fastest in high-density suburbs and the most prosperous and high-density areas of central cities. Moreover, the rate of new housing construction has been low or falling in all types of locations since 2000, but particularly so in the low-density suburbs and rural areas where most of the recent quantity growth has occurred. Altogether, the US housing stock has been getting older, more crowded, and less affordable in recent years.

Urban boundaries make housing unaffordable

By increasing the value of land inside the boundary. From REASON:

In too many metropolitan areas, housing is no longer affordable for middle-class households, especially in markets subject to "urban containment," now the world's dominant planning regime. According to planning experts Arthur C. Nelson and Casey Dawkins, urban containment draws "a line around an urban area"; it includes urban growth boundaries and greenbelts. It is "explicitly designed to limit the development of land outside a defined urban area, while encouraging" infill, to limit or block organic urban expansion.

Urban containment is intended to increase urban land costs. Shifting demand inside the contained area produces an abrupt increase in land values at the boundary, distorting the land value gradient. As Nelson and Dawkins say, "This shift should decrease the value of land outside the boundary and the value of land inside the boundary" (emphasis added), which effectively sets a higher "floor value" for urban land. This is the "urban containment effect."

If you subsidize homelessness, you get more of it

This article

The Way Los Angeles Is Trying to Solve Homelessness Is ‘Absolutely Insane’ misses the big picture in two ways:

1. It ignores the simple idea that if you subsidize anything, like homelessness, you get more of it; and
2. The NIMBY wars over zoning that raise the price of housing is one of the causes of homelessness.  

On the plus side, it describes the costs of the NIMBY wars in LA in ironic detail:

When do Angelenos want affordable housing? Now! Where do they want it? Not here!

And it documents the added cost of the zoning which reduces supply.

“If you look at the inflated cost [$500,000/unit] that comes along with all of the regulation and rules and restrictions and limitations,” Galperin said, “then basically all of this money is going to feed the beast of covering the cost of the regulations. ... We’ve created an absolutely insane system.”

PREDICTION: Nothing will get done, despite Homelessness being voters' #1 concern: "The politics of the affordable housing crisis are terrible. The politics of what you’d need to do to solve it are even worse."

Former student Mike Saint (deceased) said as much a while ago in his book NIMBY Wars: The Politics of Land Use

HT: MarginalRevolution.com

Why did Martha's Vineyard homes increase from $700K to $1M in 2021?

NIMBYism restricts development (supply), so that the only thing that can adjust to an increase in demand (induced by the pandemic) is the price. From a 2021 NY Times letter to the editor: 

In the end, what really reads in this strange piece is that this gentleman didn’t like the Water Street apartments in Vineyard Haven for some reason, and is nervous about the Lambert’s Cove development. To this, there is of course an argument to be expressed and heard. But when it takes the form of such cynical bloat, it becomes a mockery of its own argument. It makes clear that the spirit of “not in my backyard” is as much of an obstacle to continuing to preserve the Island’s community as some self-interested folks, such as those who are pretending to oppose the housing bank out of supposed “environmental” issues. 

 ... I am also absolutely and constantly baffled when people complain about the one, sole affordable housing developer on the Island, a developer which takes great pains to protect the environment and build in accordance with what natural environment and cultural environment exists there, such as preserving and occasionally building around trees and trying to tear down as little as possible — and then conveniently miss the fact that every other building in Edgartown, for instance, has been torn down and turned into a McMansion over the past three years. If this attitude doesn’t come from self-interested hypocrisy, it comes from an extreme level of blindness.

YIMBY's retake the moral high ground

• NY Times: 

NIMBY stands for “Not in my backyard,” an acronym that proliferated in the early 1980s to describe neighbors who fight nearby development, especially anything involving apartments. ... NIMBYs who used to be viewed as, at best, defenders of their community, and at worst just practical, are now painted as housing hoarders whose efforts have increased racial segregation, deepened wealth inequality and are robbing the next generation of the American dream.

• June 5, 2022 State Court of Appeal allows Tiburon Development (p.108):

CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act] was meant to serve noble purposes, but it can be manipulated to be a formidable tool of obstruction, particularly against proposed projects that will increase housing density. A CEQA lawsuit “provide[s] a uniquely powerful legal tool to block, delay, or leverage economic and other agendas,” and “is now the tool of choice for resisting change that would accommodate more people in existing communities.” 

...However, when private opposition is joined with official hostility, CEQA becomes an even more fearsome weapon. When the project proponent faces sustained private opposition, plus the combined animus of two levels of local government, the temptation to throw in the towel must be overwhelming. Something is very wrong with this picture. 

• More Battles Lost and Won:

 California’s chronic housing shortage shows no signs of abating with construction scarcely half of the 180,000 new units the state says are needed each year to close the demand/supply deficit. 

There is no single reason, but rather a toxic mélange of high costs, regulatory overkill and stubborn resistance from local government officials catering to the not-in-my-backyard sentiments of their constituents. [However, ...] pro-housing pressures may be having some effect:

• SACRAMENTO: Anyone who doubts the negative impact of high costs on housing should take a look at the budget for a 124-unit affordable housing project on the state-owned site of a former National Guard armory. ... The state is donating the land to the non-profit developer, Bridge Housing Corp., without cost and the City of Sacramento is waiving $468,624 in impact fees. But the budget for the project is still $82.4 million, which works out to about $665,000 per unit — enough to buy a very nice house for every projected low-income tenant.
• CONCORD: What would be the San Francisco Bay Area’s largest ever housing development, 13,000 units on the site of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station, is stalling out.
• HUNTINGTON BEACH: Orange County ... finally approved a 48-unit condominium project... Years of court battles with pro-housing groups and pressure from new state laws finally forced the city to throw in its beach towel last month.
• TIBURON: ... the state Court of Appeal last month slapped down Tiburon’s nearly half-century-long efforts to block construction of a few new homes on a hill overlooking the tiny city.  [see decision above] 

What does Jerry Brown know that Mayor Cooper has yet to learn?

Nashville Mayor John Cooper signed a bill to require developers to build affordable housing.  This makes housing more costly, reducing supply, so Cooper also includes incentives to increase supply, trying to give back with one hand what he is taking away with the other.  This is exactly what the Stanford Law Review [see below] called a " 'kludgy' set of policies that can actually prevent new development and end up increasing housing prices."  

Cooper is repeating--rather than learning from--the mistakes of the past.

• Affordable housing mandates reduce the supply of affordable housing
• These kinds of zoning restrictions are popular because they drive the price of existing housing above replacement cost, benefiting Nashville's homeowners. But they come at the expense of renters and new residents. As the Financial Times put it:
  

  They are the ransom that renters and recent buyers must pay to existing homeowners – whose homes the rules protect – for use of an artificially limited stock of housing. So severe have those restrictions become that the value of the ransom runs into the trillions. 

• Nice summary of the affordable housing crisis from Stanford Law Review
• [the cause of the affordable housing crisis] is uncontroversial among urban economists but not broadly understood by low-income families, advocates for low-income families, housing activists, and their allies in academia, policy, and government—in short, the housing advocacy community. In the face of higher housing costs, the housing advocacy community tends to argue for a “kludgy” set of policies that can actually prevent new development and end up increasing housing prices

• This good idea comes from California
• Even Jerry Brown gave up on affordable housing mandates because they have done nothing to increase supply, so he axed California’s approximately 400 redevelopment agencies (RDAs).

To alleviate the crisis, reduce the barriers to expanding housing supply, like local zoning, regardless of what kind of housing it is.  New supply will bring down all prices.  But as the Financial Times notes above, this would be politically unpopular, as homeowners benefit from strict zoning that limits new supply because it raises their housing prices.  

Density is green!: California housing supply to increase.

Restrictive zoning laws have decreased supply and driven up housing prices in almost every state, especially in California. This has led states to build "affordable housing" to combat the problem that their own restrictive zoning laws created. But now, the California Governor is trying to attack the zoning problem directly.

Newsom previously had shaken up single-family zoning by signing legislation that allowed more homeowners to build in-law units on their properties. SB 9 takes that further, allowing property owners to build up to two duplexes on what was once a single-family lot.

However, the usual suspects [we hypocrites] are opposing density that reduces sprawl, pollution, and traffic:

Slow-growth group Livable California, which has pushed back against SB 9, called it a “radical density experiment” and worried developers would use it to remake neighborhoods without community input.

In case I have to translate, "community input" means "no new supply" which raises the price of housing which benefits older, richer homeowners who are likely to vote; and hurts younger, poorer would-be homeowners who are less likely to vote.

 

HT: The Pamphleteer

Nice summary of the affordable housing crisis

in the Stanford Law Review:

[the cause of the affordable housing crisis] is uncontroversial among urban economists but not broadly understood by low-income families, advocates for low-income families, housing activists, and their allies in academia, policy, and government—in short, the housing advocacy community. In the face of higher housing costs, the housing advocacy community tends to argue for a “kludgy” set of policies that can actually prevent new development and end up increasing housing prices— campaigns to impose building moratoria, for example, or downzonings, community benefits agreements and other exactions, lengthy approvals procedures that disadvantage developers relative to NIMBYs, various forms of rent control, and a focus on affordable housing to the exclusion of other types of development. …. 

In the suburbs, the politics of exclusionary policies are hopeless: the cartellike interests of suburban “homevoters” are well-served by current exclusionary policies, state and federal courts for the most part won’t intervene, and there is very little interest among state legislators to impose regional or state-wide solutions.11 The picture is less bleak in exclusionary cities: renters, who would directly benefit from lower housing prices, are a majority in many of these cities, and advocates for affordable housing already form a politically influential bloc—but they use their power to ends that are often counterproductive.12 While there are other serious obstacles to expanding housing supply, the housing advocacy community could and should become an important part of the fight against urban land use regimes that systematically privilege a city’s wealthiest and most powerful residents. … 

A city’s ability to remain affordable depends most crucially on its ability to expand housing supply in the face of increased demand. Among the people who care most about high housing costs there is a lack of understanding of the main causes and the policy approaches that can address them. The central message of this Article is that the housing advocacy community—from the shoeleather organizer to the academic theoretician—needs to abandon its reflexively anti-development sentiments and embrace an agenda that accepts and advocates for increased housing development of all types as a way to blunt rising housing costs in the country’s most expensive markets.

HT: Campbell

Who gets "affordable" housing?

When the government fixes prices of affordable housing below market rates, there is excess demand, i.e., more people demand the apartments at the low prices than are available for supply.  So how do the apartments get allocated?

"Insiders" use influence to grab the valuable apartments:

But for years, Brooklyn DA Eric Gonzalez charges, the top three execs of the Luna Park Housing Corp. conspired to “sell” units — accepting five- and even six-figure bribes in exchange for faking documents so that a new tenant could “inherit” an apartment as a supposed relative of the old one.

Prosecutors “believe that this was the norm, not the exception,” Gonzalez reports. The 14,000-strong waiting list was a joke.

Corruption this brazen surely isn’t “the norm” at all Mitchell-Lama projects, but it’s hardly cynical to suspect that insiders are pulling scams all across the city’s vast and varied affordable-housing landscape.

An apartment that by law has a rent well below market rate is a valuable commodity; gatekeepers can cash in big by quietly selling access. Not always for actual money: Political or even family connections can be enough.

Similarly, would-be tenants regularly have to pay someone (a broker, a landlord, some fixer) a hefty fee up front to score a rent-regulated apartment.

Anytime the government fixes prices below (or above) what the market price would be, it also creates incentives to circumvent the prices.  What is most damaging, however, is that these bribes are paid by those who want apartments (demand) but the rewards go to people who manage the apartments, not to those who build (supply) them.  As such they reduce supply (as they have done in Nashville), creating "shortages."

BOTTOM LINE:
Next time you hear a politician complain about a "shortages of affordable housing" ask him or her if she thinks there is a "shortage of affordable Rolls Royce automobiles."

More posts on the effects of affordable housing.

Where the working class can NOT afford to live

There is a lot of recent rhetoric about socialism and class conflict (see NY Times on The New Socialists).  Housing is one reason so many young people are so disaffected (article behind the grim map above).  

• San Antonio is the only one of the top 10 most populated cities where a working class family can enjoy a decent living without taking on more debt. Out of the top 50, only 12 qualify. 

• Geography obviously plays a big role as well. Newark, New Jersey, Chesapeake, Va., and Jacksonville, Fla., are the only coastal locations where a worker can support his or her family. How many on the West Coast? Shocker: Exactly zero. You probably don’t need a map to tell you, but the more landlocked, the more affordable.

•  The best place to live from a financial perspective on an Average Joe’s salary is Fort Worth, Texas, which would leave a working-class family with a $10,447 surplus at the end of the year. On the flip side, that same family would need an additional $91,184 just to break even in New York City.

For affordable housing, move away from the coasts

This map plots the ratio of an average house to average income:

And as the Brooking article notes, and as I've noted, the lack of affordability in places like California can often be blamed on state and local government measures designed to limit the construction and diversification of housing. Zoning laws and other regulatory barriers to new housing production have decimated housing affordability of housing in many coastal cities.

Cities like San Francisco and Seattle have essentially become playgrounds for the wealthy in which existing homeowners fight tooth and nail any attempt to allow sizable amounts of new housing construction. They do this, they tell us, to preserve "the character of the neighborhood." But what they're really doing is using government regulations to drive up the prices on their own real estate, while driving lower-income people further and further out into the periphery. Oh sure, these Progressive guardians of the local "quality of life" might allow a handful of subsidized housing units to be built. After all, somebody has to make your cappuccino or do your dry cleaning. But the overall effect is to ensure few people can afford to move in.