Housing policy megathread

[crazy canuck]

So I'm taking you at your word that Winnipeg is one of the 8th densest cities, because I wouldn't have expected that.  But whatever is causing Winnipeg (and Calgary's) density, it isn't geography.

A question, how do Canadian regulatory authorities see housing developments on arable land?
Is it allowed? Disencouraged?

Each province regulates it differently.  Here arable land near urban centres are put in a land reserve.  It's not impossible to remove land from the reserve but it is difficult. 

Food being important...

[Admiral Yi]

Stockholm has a  bad housing situation. This is known.
Blaming this on rent control however seems a massive reach as much as folk of a certain ideology are keen to always do so.
Surely far more of a reason is the plummeting home building numbers and increased demand for some parts of Sweden like Stockholm whilst others have declined,

Many people have pointed out in this thread there is a causal relation between rent control and new home construction.

[DGuller]

Stalin's purges had nothing to do with Soviet military disasters in 1941.  The problem was the absence of experienced military officers.

[Josquius]

Stalin's purges had nothing to do with Soviet military disasters in 1941.  The problem was the absence of experienced military officers.

I tried to make this analogy work.
Something about how you think the problem isn't the death of the old officers but a disincentive to be an officer... But I can't make it work. It's just a terrible analogy that doesn't line up at all.
Maybe something about the slum clearances to build social tower blocks reducing density?...

Stockholm has a  bad housing situation. This is known.
Blaming this on rent control however seems a massive reach as much as folk of a certain ideology are keen to always do so.
Surely far more of a reason is the plummeting home building numbers and increased demand for some parts of Sweden like Stockholm whilst others have declined,

Many people have pointed out in this thread there is a causal relation between rent control and new home construction.

So say the liberal economists assuming their perfect green field scenario.
In reality it's a nonsense.

Particular to Sweden see how with rent control in place they were able to construct a million homes in 10 years whilst with a liberalising market this past 3 decades they managed half that rate on a good year.

See London with its insane ultra capitalist system of tenants bidding against each other... And no sign of much house building on the horizon. 
In what universe is a guy mortgaged up to his neck in 3 buy to let properties ever going to be in a  position to build a property to rent out?

Edit - I was curious so checked up on the UK figures.
 Private sector build to rent, not subject to any price controls, accounts for 5-10% of completions in a given year.
Social housing completions on the other hand, rent controlled properties, account for 15-20%.

[Admiral Yi]

Edit - I was curious so checked up on the UK figures.
 Private sector build to rent, not subject to any price controls, accounts for 5-10% of completions in a given year.
Social housing completions on the other hand, rent controlled properties, account for 15-20%.

Social housing by definition is not affected by supply and demand.

[Josquius]

Edit - I was curious so checked up on the UK figures.
 Private sector build to rent, not subject to any price controls, accounts for 5-10% of completions in a given year.
Social housing completions on the other hand, rent controlled properties, account for 15-20%.

Social housing by definition is not affected by supply and demand.

Ok?
I'm not sure how this is a reply to anything.
Also not particularly true. When I worked in the social housing sector supply and demand were very big deals.

I put it out again. No matter what the liberal economists models may say, reality clearly shows that rent control tends to have fuck all to do with the amount of housing that gets built other than it's spread being an indicator (where none is needed) that things are not good.

[Admiral Yi]

Social housing by definition is not affected by supply and demand.

Ok?
I'm not sure how this is a reply to anything.
Also not particularly true. When I worked in the social housing sector supply and demand were very big deals.

I put it out again. No matter what the liberal economists models may say, reality clearly shows that rent control tends to have fuck all to do with the amount of housing that gets built other than it's spread being an indicator (where none is needed) that things are not good.
[/quote]

I will make an attempt to explain to you why this is a reply to anything.

Private for profit housing is sensitive to rental prices because it determines their profit or loss.  Capping rental prices will tend to decrease new housing construction because they diminish the stream of revenue that funds the construction and creates profit.

Profit does not determine the amount of social housing constructed.  Tax revenue is raised, housing is built through a political process, not a business decision.  So the amount built has no relevance to the question of whether rent ceilings affect housing construction.

[Josquius]

Social housing by definition is not affected by supply and demand.

Ok?
I'm not sure how this is a reply to anything.
Also not particularly true. When I worked in the social housing sector supply and demand were very big deals.

I put it out again. No matter what the liberal economists models may say, reality clearly shows that rent control tends to have fuck all to do with the amount of housing that gets built other than it's spread being an indicator (where none is needed) that things are not good.

I will make an attempt to explain to you why this is a reply to anything.

Private for profit housing is sensitive to rental prices because it determines their profit or loss.  Capping rental prices will tend to decrease new housing construction because they diminish the stream of revenue that funds the construction and creates profit.[/quote]

Yes. We all know what the green field theoreticals say.
However, like a lot of liberal  thinking, we can clearly see that reality doesn't work this way.
We have clear examples of where not having rent control in a hot market doesn't lead to a large amount of house building.
Examples where social housing outbuilds private housing and where housing targets  are crushed under a very controlled system but fall way short when things are left to the private sector.

Profit does not determine the amount of social housing constructed.  Tax revenue is raised, housing is built through a political process, not a business decision.  So the amount built has no relevance to the question of whether rent ceilings affect housing construction.

Profit is not the only factor in housing.
Also considerations are where opportunities to build exist and where the most good can be done.
Though politics play a role you'd be surprised how much it does resemble a regular "business decision" as a private company might make- also let's not neglect politics plays a role in pure for profit developers work too.

And agreed. The amount of housing built has no relevance to the question of whether rents are regulated.
As much as liberals love to act all smug and kick the idea of rent control, in doing so they show a fundamental disconnect with reality.

[Admiral Yi]

I just explained why the relative amount of social housing constructed does not refute the "green field theoretical" belief that there is causality between rent control and housing construction then you just repeat your talking point.

Did you read what I wrote before responding?

[Josquius]

I just explained why the relative amount of social housing constructed does not refute the "green field theoretical" belief that there is causality between rent control and housing construction then you just repeat your talking point.

So a much larger amount of housing being built under a rent controlled system than in a free market system means that rent control reduces house building?
Is this some kind of argument that we need to destroy social housing down to the root in order for the magical market to finally solve all our problems? That there is some affordable housing out there means there's just no interest in the ability to charge over a thousand quid a month  for a box?

There's a huge housing shortage. Social housing is doing a better job than the free market of actually tackling this but both combined are still falling way short of what we need.
By your logic the private builders unencumbered by rent control should be building like crazy. They aren't.
The reasons clearly lie in a completely different place to rent control.

Did you read what I wrote before responding?

Ironic since your replies give away that you clearly haven't done this. You quote a small part of the whole in order to repeat the same points and not addressing the fact that reality seems to show different.

[Admiral Yi]

So a much larger amount of housing being built under a rent controlled system than in a free market system means that rent control reduces house building?

It doesn't mean that and it doesn't mean the opposite, because as I said before the amount of social housing constructed has no relevance to the relationship between rent control and for profit construction.  It doesn't demonstrate there is a causal relationship and it doesn't disprove it.

[Razgovory]

Edit - I was curious so checked up on the UK figures.
 Private sector build to rent, not subject to any price controls, accounts for 5-10% of completions in a given year.
Social housing completions on the other hand, rent controlled properties, account for 15-20%.

That only amounts to 30% of rental properties.  Who's building the rest of them if they are not private and not public?

[Sheilbh]

That only amounts to 30% of rental properties.  Who's building the rest of them if they are not private and not public?

Build to let is not a massive sector in the UK and I think is largely student housing. Mostly it's for sale which landlords buy and place on the rental market.

Also, again, rent control and social housing are very different things.

The reasons clearly lie in a completely different place to rent control.

Which is why we need to demolish the planning system

[Josquius]

It doesn't mean that and it doesn't mean the opposite, because as I said before the amount of social housing constructed has no relevance to the relationship between rent control and for profit construction.  It doesn't demonstrate there is a causal relationship and it doesn't disprove it.

So in other words you agree with me.
The idea that rent control is bad and leads to a housting shortage is just unfounded in the real world.
In a perfect green field model then you can do some simple maths and show how it goes counter to the rules of acquisition thus is bad for business thus is bad for society.
In reality.... There's so many much more important factors at work that any impact rent control might have on the building of rental accommodation is not even noise.

Edit - I was curious so checked up on the UK figures.
 Private sector build to rent, not subject to any price controls, accounts for 5-10% of completions in a given year.
Social housing completions on the other hand, rent controlled properties, account for 15-20%.

That only amounts to 30% of rental properties.  Who's building the rest of them if they are not private and not public?

Theyre sold.

[Admiral Yi]

So in other words you agree with me.
The idea that rent control is bad and leads to a housting shortage is just unfounded in the real world.
In a perfect green field model then you can do some simple maths and show how it goes counter to the rules of acquisition thus is bad for business thus is bad for society.
In reality.... There's so many much more important factors at work that any impact rent control might have on the building of rental accommodation is not even noise.

I've tried to be very clear about the things you have said that I disagreed with.

I said that rent control tends to reduce for profit contstruction.  You have represented that assertion as several different strawmen without adressing the actual argument.  I can't figure out if you simply don't understand what I'm saying or you're just trying to run a con.

Yes, I can imagine cases in which rent control would have no impact on private sector construction.  The rent cap could be set at a billion dollars a month and that would not deter construction.  One could set a rent ceiling at the North Pole and that would not deter construction because there is no demand to begin with.  Alternatively government could construct billions of units of high quality, subsidized, cheap housing and rent control on private housing would not deter construction because all the demand would have already been soaked up.

None of those cases refute my assertion.