!yimby@lemmy.world !justtaxland@lemmy.world
Comment on Housing crisis: Are you prepared to wait 6 months to rent a studio in Paris? | Euronews
galloog1@lemmy.world 7 months ago
This is the natural result of putting price caps on a market. It says so in the article. Only increasing supply can help with the cost of housing and it needs to be done above demand levels. Until units start sitting vacant that are actually on the market, you won’t see prices go down or people’s needs actually met.
Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Zorque@kbin.social 7 months ago
The problem is, tenants need a place to stay, while landlords don't need to provide it. They want to, but they can (mostly) afford to let an apartment sit unrented, especially if they raise the price for the surrounding units. Someone will eventually pay the price.
In a "free" market, those with the capital have power, those that don't... don't.
Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Then tax land. Make landlords sweat if they fail to rent out units.
The solution to housing affordability is all about negotiation power. Currently, tenants in many cities do not have negotiating power because an overall shortage of housing and thus no credible threat of vacancy (and with no land tax, vacancy isn’t enough of a financial loss). Build more housing by making it legal and easy to build housing, tax land, and tenants will have far more negotiating power.
A good example is my city, Montreal. Thanks to being one of the most YIMBY cities in North America, we have far more missing middle housing than any other city of this size on the continent. The result? More power to the tenants, less to the landlords. And the result of this power? Not only is my rent waaaaay cheaper for what I get compared to my sister in Boston (we pay about the same, but she has 3 roommates and lives farther out, while I have 1-br and live right next to downtown in an insanely walkable neighborhood), but I also negotiated down my rent when moving in. The reason I could negotiate down my rent was because the landlord had a credible threat of vacancy, so they’d rather lower rent by a hundred bucks than risk vacancy.
Valthorn@feddit.nu 7 months ago
Letting the market decide the rent will not magically create more housing, only make the existing housing in a high-demand place like Paris very expensive. The effect might be that it is easier to find an apartment, but only because you have forced the poor out of the city and moved the housing crisis further away from the city. Of course the landlords would be happy if they could charge some 3000€ per month for a small studio apartment in a dodgy neighbourhood, so of course the economists say this is a good idea, since line go up is good.
Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Letting the market decide the rent will not magically create more housing
Rent control does not create new housing either. The reason economists basically all say rent control is bad policy is because it drastically reduces the amount of housing that gets built.
If you want more housing, make it legal and easy to build new housing like Japan did. Tokyo is the most populous city in the world, and yet it’s remarkably affordable because it’s very easy and streamlined to build new housing.
In Tokyo, by contrast, there is little public or subsidized housing. Instead, the government has focused on making it easy for developers to build. A national zoning law, for example, sharply limits the ability of local governments to impede development. Instead of allowing the people who live in a neighborhood to prevent others from living there, Japan has shifted decision-making to the representatives of the entire population, allowing a better balance between the interests of current residents and of everyone who might live in that place. Small apartment buildings can be built almost anywhere, and larger structures are allowed on a vast majority of urban land. Even in areas designated for offices, homes are permitted. After Tokyo’s office market crashed in the 1990s, developers started building apartments on land they had purchased for office buildings.
www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/…/tokyo-housing.html
Also, you appear to have a very uninformed view of who economists are and what they value. Economists, like all other social scientists, are academics and scientists. Believe it or not, economists are not a cabal of landlords wanting prices to go up; just about every economist will tell you the dangers of inflation and rent-seeking. You might be surprised to learn the surveyed beliefs of economists:
- The majority of surveyed American economists vote for Democrats instead of Republicans
- The majority are in favor of environmental protection regulations (EPA)
- The majority are in favor of food and drug safety regulations (FDA)
- The majority are in favor of occupational health and safety regulations (OSHA)
Further, the largest-ever survey on economists’ views on the climate show an overwhelming economic consensus on climate change:
We conducted a large-sample global survey on climate economics, which we sent to all economists who have published climate-related research in the field’s highest-ranked academic journals; 738 responded. To our knowledge, this is the largest-ever expert survey on the economics of climate change. The results show an overwhelming consensus that the costs of inaction on climate change are higher than the costs of action, and that immediate, aggressive emissions reductions are economically desirable.
ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Thank you for doing what you do
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 7 months ago
You can’t increase supply. There’s nowhere to build in Paris.
Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Up
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 7 months ago
That would work, but it isn’t allowed. So the only option at the moment would be down.
TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 7 months ago
old cities and building down do not mix. All kinds of undocumented stuff under there, not to mention historical sites like les catacombes
Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Tokyo is the most populous city on the planet with like 3x the population of Paris, and yet it’s remarkably affordable. Why? It’s easy af to build there. Japan has a simple, nationwide zoning code that makes it extremely easy and streamlined to build new housing.
Clearly Tokyo has found the room. Paris has plenty of room.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Tokyo density 6 200 / km²
Paris density 20 000 / km²
Tokyo may be larger, but you’re comparing two very different things.
Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 7 months ago
You’re comparing only the cities proper. A better comparison is urban areas, i.e., the contiguous built-up regions, as stats for cities proper are skewed by the arbitrariness of municipal boundaries and stats for metropolitan areas are skewed by often encompassing large amounts of rural areas.
To compare urban area densities: