Housing policy megathread

[Sheilbh]

And honestly this sounds fine to me. For some people a rental place is just a transient location where they're sleeping for a short spell, for others its their home. Stability is important in this. Especially since a situation of market rates being way out of sync with average earnings should only ever be temporary. Where it emerges action should be taken to fix it without the safety net of rent control becoming the permanent main platform.

But rent control isn't a safety net and it doesn't work on its own terms if you have a lots of exceptions. For it to work it needs to be close to universal. That's one of the points the NEF piece you posted made.

If it's not universal it just creates a two-tier system - I'd add I think that adds all sorts of risks for other forms of discrimination.

Also a bit besides the point worth mentioning is the Dutch system I've read about where the amount you can charge in rent is directly tied to the condition of the home; seems directly aimed at a weird argument the economists make is that rent control disincentives maintenance (which makes no sense and doesn't line up with reality).

This Dutch system?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-28/netherlands-rent-controls-deepen-housing-crisis

Its not perfect of course. There's the problem of a old guy whose family are gone paying peanuts for a 4 bedroom house much bigger than his needs. A big balance there of the ethics of moving him out vs. the needs of the community.
But nor is it something to be just dismissed 'cos the economists say its bad for business.

To be clear economists do not say it's bad for business. They say it creates a dysfunctional distorted market that is basically only good for people who have rent-controlled apartments and who don't want to move or whose life circumstances don't change. For everyone else the market distortions are negative.

Edit: Also I really did use the LSE academics talking about forcing grandparents to move out of their family home as a bad policy idea (And where people end up if their main terror of planning reform is that someone, somewhere might make a profit)

[Josquius]

But rent control isn't a safety net and it doesn't work on its own terms if you have a lots of exceptions. For it to work it needs to be close to universal. That's one of the points the NEF piece you posted made.

If it's not universal it just creates a two-tier system - I'd add I think that adds all sorts of risks for other forms of discrimination.

Never expected you to be against social housing 

Having a completely universal system of state housing seems pretty infeasible to me. This is one of the key areas where even in a theoretical perfect Star Trek Federation post-capitalist society you'd still need some kind of exchange- you can get a house by default, this is fine, but if you want that one particular house with the lovely view of the valley.... well then thats a commodity.

I see no problem social housing being provided with priority to those meeting certain criteria whilst the rest continues to be privately owned- as much of this as possible being owner occupied and for the private sector laws being in place to stop blatant profiteering.

This Dutch system?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-28/netherlands-rent-controls-deepen-housing-crisis

So the problem here is that a private renter has lost their home because their private landlord is no longer in profit (I imagine a buy to let person who couldn't afford the house in the first place, but not mentioned there) and the landlord is instead selling the home to someone who wants to live in it?

Sounds like this certainly sucks for that individual (and highlights that they need to build more housing and prioritise key workers) but is a good thing overall.  And rather convenient to just ignore the existence of those people who can afford to keep living in hot property markets they'd otherwise be priced out of.

Very bizarre to use this to say "Ha, rent control is bad!". The article itself even clearly highlights they've a big shortfall in homebuilding. The Netherlands has a situation worse than even the UK .

To be clear economists do not say it's bad for business. They say it creates a dysfunctional distorted market that is basically only good for people who have rent-controlled apartments and who don't want to move or whose life circumstances don't change. For everyone else the market distortions are negative.

Edit: Also I really did use the LSE academics talking about forcing grandparents to move out of their family home as a bad policy idea (And where people end up if their main terror of planning reform is that someone, somewhere might make a profit)

A dysfunctional distorted market...as opposed to the current completely healthy and fine London market?

[garbon]

And honestly this sounds fine to me. For some people a rental place is just a transient location where they're sleeping for a short spell, for others its their home. Stability is important in this. Especially since a situation of market rates being way out of sync with average earnings should only ever be temporary. Where it emerges action should be taken to fix it without the safety net of rent control becoming the permanent main platform.

But that would just incentivise landlords wanting to rent to people they think will be transitory. Or it might encourage them not to get into renting as eventually it may be cost prohibitive when taxes, utilities, maintenance costs go up but rent can't.

It also is harmful for people who want to live in the community in which they grew up. If it encourages more people to be static (aka not move) and rents are rising on the smaller amount of stock available, those who grew up will likely still be priced out though their older parents can continue to rent at cheap rates.

[Sheilbh]

Will come back to this - but rent control and social housing are not the same thing.

[Josquius]

But that would just incentivise landlords wanting to rent to people they think will be transitory.

I can see the logic. But thats not how things work out in practice. There tends to be quite the well understood hierarchy with locals on top and those on the most temporary of visas at the bottom.
I thinkkkk there are laws about price rises over time periods as well as with new tenants.

Or it might encourage them not to get into renting as eventually it may be cost prohibitive when taxes, utilities, maintenance costs go up but rent can't.

This is a feature, not a flaw.

It also is harmful for people who want to live in the community in which they grew up. If it encourages more people to be static (aka not move) and rents are rising on the smaller amount of stock available, those who grew up will likely still be priced out though their older parents can continue to rent at cheap rates.

Yes. It isn't perfect and has disadvantages. Reduced mobility is a potential one.
But when the question is should only the old and established being able to afford to keep living in the same place they have their whole life vs. nobody being able to afford this then I'd go with the lesser evil whilst continuing to shout about the need to build more housing.

[Jacob]

How is discouraging landlords from entering the market going to help increase the availability of rental units?

[Valmy]

But Canada has plenty of space, it is one of the least densely populated countries in the world.

Wiki tells me that Canada's cities are among the most densely populated in North America.  Toronto is number 1, Greater Vancouver is fourth.  Montreal, Calgary and Winnipeg are in the top 8. Why is that you might ask.  Canada has vast areas of space that are not reasonably habitable.  So while we have plenty of space we need to pack into the areas that are more habitable than not. 

Ok well I still think the solution to your housing crisis is to build more housing. Maybe your cities just sprawl a bit more.

[Grey Fox]

They will.

My suburban town has change one policy to help building more housing. It is now allowed to remove any single family dwelling & build a multiple family house in its stead. Our sprawl is contained (it's an island!) so that's a great policy, imo.

[crazy canuck]

But Canada has plenty of space, it is one of the least densely populated countries in the world.

Wiki tells me that Canada's cities are among the most densely populated in North America.  Toronto is number 1, Greater Vancouver is fourth.  Montreal, Calgary and Winnipeg are in the top 8. Why is that you might ask.  Canada has vast areas of space that are not reasonably habitable.  So while we have plenty of space we need to pack into the areas that are more habitable than not. 

Ok well I still think the solution to your housing crisis is to build more housing. Maybe your cities just sprawl a bit more.

Yes, the solution is to build more housing. But we can't just sprawl more. Vancouver, for example, is confined by its geography unless of course the state of Washington would like to give us some land to the south.

The solution for most cities is not to build outward because they can't. The solution is to increase density.  That has been politically difficult because of nimbism.  But that is changing.

[Valmy]

Surely not every Canadian city is geographically constrained in this way though.

[crazy canuck]

Surely not every Canadian city is geographically constrained in this way though.

You're right. Just the major ones.

Why do you think the Canadian cities I listed are in the top eight most densely populated in North America?

[Josquius]

Surely not every Canadian city is geographically constrained in this way though.

Every city is to some extent. Even if we assume a city on a barren featureless plain, there's only so far out you can sprawl before getting to the centre becomes really inconvenient.

How is discouraging landlords from entering the market going to help increase the availability of rental units?

It doesn't.
But they're not building a home out of nowhere. They're buying one that would otherwise be bought by someone who wants to live in it.
YMMV elsewhere with different culture and laws (I know in Switzerland its pretty weird), but in the UK most people who are renting are doing so because they can't afford to buy.

[crazy canuck]

Here is an article from the New York Times, examining the problem.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/30/business/economy/interest-rate-cuts-housing-affordability-crisis.html?unlocked_article_code=1.G04.pvuJ.QD-VRR83iP5S&smid=url-share

[Valmy]

Surely not every Canadian city is geographically constrained in this way though.

You're right. Just the major ones.

Why do you think the Canadian cities I listed are in the top eight most densely populated in North America?

So the solution is to increase density in the most densely populated and most geographically constrained places in North America? Seems like a solution you are proposing is just do more of the same thing that created the problem, no?

Every city is to some extent. Even if we assume a city on a barren featureless plain, there's only so far out you can sprawl before getting to the centre becomes really inconvenient.

Sure. You might need to build another centre someplace. Cities cannot be infinitely large.

[crazy canuck]

Valmy, It's not the solution I am proposing.  It's the solution that all of the housing experts in Canada are proposing. The solution that every politician in Canada is proposing whether left or right.

Why is everyone proposing increased density as the solution? Because they all understand what you seem to not be able to understand.  There is nowhere else for the big cities to build out.

Also, you haven't been paying attention to what has caused the increased housing prices.  It is that there is a lack of supply not that there is too much density.