Just tax carbon.

​

The IPCC discusses it, and aligned with economic consensus about this kind of stuff.

​

​

Also, fight against low density zoning. Don't need gas if you can bike and walk to your local amenities.

>Tons of inventory is new construction which is typically the pricier end of the spectrum as it's more profitable for builders

​

​

and its decidedly unprofitable to build low-end stuff given the land use rules here. Kinda hard to justify building a starter home when the lot size is massive and you can only build 1 house. The land price alone puts you out of range of an 'affordable house'

We could just legalize more housing. The primary constraint on construction is zoning.

its ok to be wrong. its called the missing middle because..... cities typically only legalize on the either end of the housing spectrum.

​

so we get some of this expensive development, whereas this kind of more affordable development is illegal to build.

they are illegal in the vast vast majority of developable area

of course, so are townhomes, duplexs, 4plexes, village cottages, dorm style housing, etc... ya know, the missing middle.

>But those “people” who are willing to pay arent people actually from Richmond

​

​

nativism is gross.

​

​

>There’s clearly been a huge onset of gentrification fueled by greed and opportunity in the last few years

​

people want to live near urban amenities. the city makes it hard to build housing. so the price goes up. moralizing about greed is stupid because even if people were super altruistic, the price would still go up by the same amount because people would still be bidding the rents.

​

​

>and when that isn’t matched with meaningful improvements to the life of the people that actually live in the area it’s affecting, it should be noted as an issue.

​

​

of course its an issue. we have this huge influx in investment, but without a corresponding output in housing. and its not because we lack a supply of wood, copper, drywall and concrete.

​

>Anyone that’s lived in Richmond a meaningful amount of time i.e 4+ years can see what’s happening to the city

​

​

been here about a decade. houses in my neighborhood have nearly doubled in price, but the city has kept the supply of homes capped at the same amount since its inception even though everybody has enough space to build 3 houses per lot, or a 4plex in every backyard, or each lot is big enough for townhome/shotgun style, or literally anything in the spectrum of the missing middle.

​

the problem is zoning. there is no reason why my neighborhood should have supply of housing fixed by policy when the prices are telling people to build.

A group famous wanting to increase the housing supply.

That's because rental prices are based on people's willingness to pay, not specifically tied to any given wage. Hell, if anything real income would fall hard if rva actually had really good sxhools, roads, etc.

Bad schools and shit infrastructure put downward pressure on rents. Good schools and public amenities raise rental prices.

So it's a cartel because ppl are using the same database for prices? If I use zillow to adjust my price of home to rent, am I forming a cartel with all other landlords in the area?

>here's a obviously predictable consequence of the housing shortage >let's legalize more housing to fix the shortage, and by extension the other problem >downvoted to oblivion

Fun fact, home apartments, communal living or dorm style apartments or 4plexes are illegal to build in most of the city.

Or legalize more apartments so the market is larger and prevent oligopolies all together.

The economic problem is easy to solve ... when there is a legally mandated shortage, just lift the mandate. Vouchers for people below the market.

Why can't ppl just be more utilitarian :(

Entry of new is the solution to any kind of price fixing. Like, if a subset of the market sets their price above the equilibrium price, then of course homes will get built because the inputs to housing construction have not changed. Price fixing literally only works if there are large barriers to entry, and for housing, the only actual barrier is zoning (you could build a code-compliant home entirely from stuff bought at big box store).

​

Buts it not even that -- its that these firms are able to raise prices because they were underestimating people's willingness to pay. So that means that upzoning (ie legalizing housing more broadly) would be even more effective than we would expect because it means there is a larger gap between the cost of building and demand (in other words, the zoning tax/deadweight loss is bigger than we think).

​

The city legalizes housing on the extremes, but little is done for starter size homes. By way of example, prices in my neighborhood have grown but the supply hasn't despite an abundance of lot space (approx 3x the space consumed by housing). And its not because its impossible to build 700sqft homes due to lack of supplies/labor. Its because the city fixed the quantity of housing.

​

​

I just find it baffling that the "just legalize more housing" as a solution to a housing shortage is the most controversial take.

long time to be in a hotel

> barred from further collusion resulting in a more competitive rental market in which landlords have to lower prices to be competitive.

​

​

rents are set by the marginal renter. so if that renter has a high willingness-to-pay, existing landlords have no incentive to lower prices.

​

and because its hard to build in the city, and demand is ever increasing, renters will face higher and higher prices.

There are widespread shortages as a result. Wait lists are famously long in places like Munich or Stockholm where wait periods can be nearly a decade.

Restrictive zoning makes most development illegal, and creates costly barriers to the development that does take place.... ie only allowing large scale apartment projects but keeping townhouses illegal

We have a housing shortage not because we lack wood or copper, but because it's literally illegal to add more homes to the lots that exist.

It creates shortages that building costs don't justify.

Most of the usable land in the city is zoned single use, low density.

Building costs aren't the barrier to entry. 4plexes, townhouses, cottage or village styles are all viable, but the zonig code only allows them in a few select areas.

Investment is obviously not the problem.

Zoning is actually fairly consistent across the country and has been since Euclid.

Bad zoning is ubiquitous. Missing middle is a national problem as a result.

Supply is far too inelastic than building costs justify. If a portion of the market is artificially raising prices, that's an incentive for others to enter.

If they can't, the problem is fundamentally local policy.

Only if there are high barriers to entry for other companies/landlords.

Wouldn't be a big deal if zoning was more flexible.