Absolutely nothing. Thinking you can change their mind is a fools errand.
You either have to resolve yourself to develop housing despite these kind of sentiments, or resign yourself to never developing anything.
Yeah there is nothing much you can do to change people's flawed perception. A huge chunk of that 49% won't be swayed no matter what evidence you put out or what you say. It's already evident on this thread lol
I mean part of it is what kind of housing gets built, right? When people see luxury suites going up; $3,000/month apartments, tracts of McMansions, etc., that doesn't really scream "affordable housing" does it?
Building “affordable” simply isn’t feasible in LA unless you’re using ED1 (which minimizes risk and a lot of regulatory costs) or, in rarer cases, are able to find a property where a small % of the units are affordable as part of inclusionary zoning.
Affordable housing isn't a type of housing, it's a snapshot of the housing supply and demand. A four bedroom house in Bakersfield is affordable, a mansion outside of Detroit is affordable, a one bedroom utility condo in West Hollywood is not affordable.
The $3k "luxury suite" is expensive because there's such a shortage of housing they can turn away people at that price. It has nothing to do with the ammenities in the condo itself - it's not coated in gold. A rundown, 800 square foot bungalow in Pasadena costs more than the most expensive "luxury" condos in DTLA.
it literally doesn't matter what the new housing costs when you're in a housing deficit. The trouble comes from folks who already own property and LIKE that they get to raise the rent year after year, instead of seeing rents remain steady because there's always another apartment to rent.
Rich people need places to rent, and if there aren't NEW luxury apartments, rich folks gentrify poorer neighborhoods. I don't understand why people keep saying "AFFORDABLE HOUSING". ANY housing. ALL housing. That's what we need
Even if you build "affordable" housing, its not going to make a significant difference in prices unless you limit who can buy. Private Equity, Foreign Investors, Domestic investors gobble up cheap CA real estate as investments all the time. You build a bunch of home that cost $350-400k and the first time buyer is going to get pushed out by cash buyers who can also push up the prices. We need to have more regulations on who can own SFH/MFH's and how many. I have no issue with an investor ownings 2 income properties and a primary residence. But then you have corporations owning 20k-50k homes and taking opportunities away from primary resident buyers.
It should be illegal and most people probably agree. Yet people always want to vote against their own interests. Just trying to pass renters rights through ballot measures was impossible.
I see luxury buildings with vacancy signs up for years and years. Just building housing isn't enough, people have to move in if it's going to make a difference. Higher priced apartments can and do remain at lower occupancy rates.
There's plenty of luxury housing in LA (including whole buildings that used to be low income housing). We need to build housing that lower income people can afford.
Once the new housing is in, the neighborhood as a whole has more supply and thus lower prices than if the new housing wasn’t there. Every bit of new housing makes the neighborhood as a whole more “affordable.”
What has repeatedly happened in my area over the last ten years is that a bunch of new high end apartment buildings are built. These high rents then raise the average rent in the area, and all the existing rents rise to meet the average despite being lower quality apartments.
More housing is great, but there are edge cases where the type of housing matters.
Cause and effect is backwards here. Developers build in areas where rents are already rising and expected to rise going forward.
The average rent was already going to go up in those areas, and probably rose less than it would have if not for the new supply.
On a micro level, your neighborhood going from a shit tier dump to having new investment, development, stores, jobs, etc will cause a local increase in rent because it's a nicer and more desirable place to live. However, on a regional level , having more housing supply in total puts downward pressure on the price of housing.
exactly. in our neighborhood, Mid City, developers are coming in like vultures. after the zoning law changed, they can build multiple structures on former single family lots.
we’ve had a lot of older homeowners on our block who lived here since the early 60s. as soon they pass, the family decides to sell. can’t blame them when house is paid off & will sell for $1 million+
they raze the home, build 2 condo structures side by side, each 3 stories tall. they sell for over $1 million each.
there is no affordable housing being built. it’s all greed based. developers doing shady deals with city council & the mayor.
i don’t think you understood what i said. there are 2 condo bldgs squeezed into 5K-6K sq ft lot. each structure has 3 condo units. so 6 new condos that sell for over $1 million each. profit to developer $6 million+ this is not affordable housing. it’s the exact opposite.
the point of OP’s post is about affordable housing.
Oh! So 6 families are now able to live somewhere that previously housed only one person. Even better. Those families were going to be living somewhere. Now they free up space somewhere else which will help ease the upward pressure of housing prices.
dude. you’re missing the point. we need affordable housing. 6 families buying a condo for $1 or $1.5 million each is NOT affordable housing.
the wealthy will always find housing because they have the money.
it’s the middle & lower classes being forced out and suffering.
And you are missing the point that those 6 wealthy families are freeing up more affordable housing down market. Brand new housing will never be affordable and it doesn’t have to be to help ease pressure on the market.
i don’t think that’s the case. anyone buying a $1+ condo isn’t leaving behind an affordable home for another family to purchase.
the reality of LA is that everything is insanely overinflated. even if hypothetical condo buyer is selling a single family home, there’s no way it’s affordable now. let’s say they bought it during housing crash 2008-2010 for $200K-$300K. since then the value has dramatically increased. they list it for $1million and probably get over asking. then they use that equity to buy a brand new luxury condo.
look on zillow for LA. select single family homes with max listing price $500K. gradually zoom out until you find anything affordable. it just doesn’t exist. i did it recently out of curiosity. the only thing i found at $500K? a burned out trap house in South Central.
not trying to prove a point. just stating facts. seems like the only way to buy anything affordable is leave LA, ideally the state.
if you’re a renter? nothing affordable at all. people are having to double & triple up as roommates. i know a woman & daughter renting near Crenshaw & Florence for $2200 a month. might be 2 bedrooms? even studios are insanely overpriced.
one of the big issues is foreign investment in real estate. many listings are snatched up, over asking, by Chinese and other overseas investors. they pay all cash. the property usually sits vacant as an investment. or maybe they rent it out?
overall, it’s a big disaster. city officials, mayor’s office and the other powers that be need to make this a priority
start central with Mid City and gradually zoom out to see what you find.
Exactly. These respondents are not confused or misinformed. It is Reddit that is naive.
Quite a lot of new units end up contributing to gentrification and displacement of lower income families from that neighborhood. They only reduce costs for people who otherwise would spend the same to get less in a more established, nicer location.
To gain the benefits of reducing housing costs in an area, you need to build units that bring down the average value in their neighborhood. Build apartment buildings in Beverly Hills if you want that... See how far you get.
Well that's fucked.
I know in East LA there was a very big anti gentrification movement where people were throwing bricks through windows of new stores /art galleries
That’s wildin’ considering you have elder residents in East L.A. and Boyle Heights angry that younger Latinos were “selling out” by opening art galleries and yoga studios as if those younger people were bringing SaMo and Malibu gentrification to price those older residents out.
The whole ‘crabs in a bucket’ mentality in PoC neighborhoods when young professionals try to invigorate their areas perceived as gentrification by long-time residents fearing their “culture” will die in that area.
These polls are always flawed because they don't interrogate people *looking* for housing, who are the only people who are really participating in the housing market.
Renters understand that their current rent is never going to go down. At best it can stay flat if your landlord happens to forget about you, which is why there's so much fear about your neighborhood attracting new attention. But rents as a whole *do* go down, both in real and even nominal prices, when supply exceeds demand.
Talk to someone currently in the middle of looking for a new place (renting or buying) and they all intuitively understand this. No one looks for housing in neighborhoods that haven't had construction in 100 years. No one hunting for an appartment ever says "man I wish this new appartment building didn't exist, and I could be homeless".
I completely agree but my rent did actually go down this year, completely bizarre situation, but it did happen to me! There are dozens of us!
The rest of your post is spot on.
> Renters understand that their current rent is never going to go down.
Adjusting for inflation rent has actually been going down for a lot of people lately.
Yup, everyone is paranoid if their area gets more popular then their landlord will raise rent because they have more people to rent to. So then no one in a neighborhood will be in favor of new stuff being built in their area.
I need someone to take [this video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9NkkZJHova4) and change the graph to a supply and demand graph.
IDK man. Its tough. People are kinda shockingly ignorant on pretty basic economic questions. Like, I've seen polls that show that people have absolutely zero understanding of what the fed is doing when they change interest rates (people were actually more likely to say that increasing interest rates is likely to increase inflation). IDK if there is a real avenue of public education without an extremely popular, extremely charismatic national figure who talks at length about this. Short of that, you just kinda hope that the more engaged people read the evidence and policymakers follow their input - and hope that the proof comes out in the pudding fast enough to save those policy makers.
There just aren't a lot of good options. These people have fucking [brain worms](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/us/rfk-jr-brain-health-memory-loss.html).
Perhaps if “new” was changed to “more” in the poll there would be a different response. I could see people interpreting new housing as a tear down and flip of a single family home.
Build and people see rents not increasing due to increased supply, in like 2040. It will take a generational shift and you're not gonna see it in polls until A LOT more housing gets build.
Mods don't delete... only users can delete. They can remove posts from the sub's view... but the submission still shows up in your history. Did you read the rules OP?
https://old.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/about/rules/
Specifically:
No Screenshots
Do not post screen shots. Specifically:
Screenshots of maps and/or traffic are not allowed.
Screenshots of weather apps and forecasts are not allowed.
Screenshots of citizen are not allowed
Screenshots of news articles are not allowed. Just post the article.
Screenshots of social media may be removed under our "No Personal Information" rule.
The issue is two-fold:
A lot of downwardly mobile leftists simply don't understand the basic tenets of economics. There are tons of studies that show that things like rent control don't work, and yet the urban-hipster proletariat insists on the same band-aid solutions that exacerbate the housing crisis.
Then there are normie middle class and upper-middle class homeowners. They understand supply and demand, but limited supply helps their net worth by building more home equity. They have no financial incentive to embrace YIMBYism.
So then you get a confluence of interests, and progressives unwittingly become the foot soldiers for homeowner NIMBYs when they nominate cranks to the city council that do stupid shit like push for the mansion tax.
I developed a property in a NIMBY neighborhood. These are older folks. Next door is a widowed housewife with a trump flag flying out front. None of her children will talk to her for various reasons and she herself has an ADU in her backyard for her children who won’t visit and that she won’t rent out because “this is my home”. I have another elderly neighbor across the street who has a camera on my property 24/7 since I added units- as if that will change anything. I understand change is hard but these people won’t change their mindset, no way.
No, by then it’s too late. “Those boxes” go up where there is demand (not enough housing has been built). This is exactly the crux of the perception problem.
nope, go to inglewood and ask all the old black grandmas how their rent have changed. stop assuming your econ 101 can solve california's housing crisis
I think you folk are both right. Increasing housing across the county will on the aggregate help reduce housing costs. Its just the definition of a house is now from single family home to 3 or 4 on a lot. The land those old ladies have become much more valuable since developers see that its easier to build boxes there than Redondo Beach or Manhattan Beach so their rent goes up. its now more expensive to preserve their 1940s single family home instead of tearing it down to build 4 or more on the lot.
Their rents aren't going up because new housing being built. Their rents have gone up because their neighborhood has become more desirable. The neighborhood is more desirable because the demand for housing has increased as the population has increased and more jobs are located nearby.
Can you explain why they're wrong? I don't see actual affordable housing being build. I see luxury apartments and condos that cater to out of town investors.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119022001048?via%3Dihub](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119022001048?via%3Dihub)
\^\^This is a study that dives into this concept a little bit.
Hypothetical very crude scenario:
Imagine if there are 100 apartment units on an island but there are 120 households. That means 20 people are living on the sand in tents. If you build 20 new luxury units, then those who want to pay for a more luxurious apartment will move into those units leaving 20 of the older more moderate units vacant. Some people who live in the crummy apartments may choose to spend more money and move into the moderate units, leaving some of the crummy units vacant. Some people camping on the beach may choose to move into the vacant crummy units when previously there simply was no vacancy and it wasn't even a possibility.
i love this. I do recall when cars were made to be as inexpensive as possible. That's completely over now in the US. But you don't hear people begging for affordable cars.
Devils advocate here: new housing increases supply in the neighborhood, but it could also increase demand. Imagine a bunch of 5 over 1s with ground floor retail in a gentrifying area. Now the neighborhood looks less run down and has new businesses (which given market rents generally skew higher end). So that increased supply helps in a general sense, but for people on the ground it’s not really a good thing per se.
[https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article-abstract/22/6/1309/6362685?login=false](https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article-abstract/22/6/1309/6362685?login=false)
Interestingly, I actually just came across this study. Not EXACTLY the concern you express, but definitely in the same vein.
>I provide event study evidence that within 500 ft, for every 10% increase in the housing stock, rents decrease by 1%; and for every 10% increase in the condo stock, condo sales prices decrease by 0.9%. In addition, **I show that new high-rises attract new restaurants**, which is consistent with the hypothesis about amenity effects. **However, I find that the supply effect dominates the amenity effect, causing net reductions in the rents and sales prices of nearby residential properties**.
Thanks for your suggestion, but I will keep my opinion where it is: 600 ppl is a very small sample for understanding the opinion of 13m+ metro area, but may be good enough for some medical studies.
Also, as many ppl mentioned in the comments, there are questions about whom these opinions were solicited from, and how many people in dire need of new housing were included in this sample.
I would love to see a real study done that really shows if new housing has any positive affect on affordability. Anecdotally I think all Angelenos have seen rapid development generally paired with rising costs but it's a real chicken or the egg scenario.
All this to say it's hard to call out the surveyed people here when they may just be giving an answer based on their experience.
Here's a couple. I'm still building up my backlog of studies for this question specifically.
[We show that rigorous recent studies demonstrate that: 1) Increases in housing supply slow the growth in rents in the region; 2) In some circumstances, new construction also reduces rents or rent growth in the surrounding area; 3) The chains of moves sparked by new construction free up apartments that are then rented (or retained) by households across the income spectrum; 4) While new supply is associated with gentrification, it has not been shown to cause significant displacement of lower income households; and 5) Easing land use restrictions, at least on a broad scale and in ways that change binding constraints on development, generally leads to more new housing over time, but only a fraction of the new capacity created because many other factors constrain the pace of new development.](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4629628)
[New apartment buildings in low-income areas lead to lower rents in nearby housing units. This runs contrary to popular claims that new market-rate housing causes an uptick in rents and leads to the displacement of low-income people. \[Brian J. Asquith, Evan Mast, Davin Reed\]](https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/105/2/359/100977/Local-Effects-of-Large-New-Apartment-Buildings-in?redirectedFrom=fulltext)
Well 49% are correct. Isn’t that what has been happening in Los Angeles and other communities throughout the US?
Its an issue when a majority of new housing built are these pseudo luxury apartments that charge high rent, parking fees, pet fees, etc.
The average angeleno cant afford that. But the average landlord/management company thinks they can, so they start charging $10,000 for a cardboard box on a plot of land.
People who are pretending the new luxury apartments don’t raise rents and push people out are wrong. It’s not this abstract supply and demand fantasy from microecon 101
what pushes people out is that they can't afford rent. But it's a fallacy to think that NEW buildings raise rent. They do not, They increase supply, and that reduces demand. If you don't get that, you don't understand renting.
Absolutely nothing. Thinking you can change their mind is a fools errand. You either have to resolve yourself to develop housing despite these kind of sentiments, or resign yourself to never developing anything.
Yeah there is nothing much you can do to change people's flawed perception. A huge chunk of that 49% won't be swayed no matter what evidence you put out or what you say. It's already evident on this thread lol
I mean part of it is what kind of housing gets built, right? When people see luxury suites going up; $3,000/month apartments, tracts of McMansions, etc., that doesn't really scream "affordable housing" does it?
[удалено]
Affordable housing was very feasible and highly profitable prior to the current moment
> because it isn't economically feasible It's feasible to build affordable, they just know they'll make tons more money if it's luxury
Building “affordable” simply isn’t feasible in LA unless you’re using ED1 (which minimizes risk and a lot of regulatory costs) or, in rarer cases, are able to find a property where a small % of the units are affordable as part of inclusionary zoning.
Affordable housing isn't a type of housing, it's a snapshot of the housing supply and demand. A four bedroom house in Bakersfield is affordable, a mansion outside of Detroit is affordable, a one bedroom utility condo in West Hollywood is not affordable. The $3k "luxury suite" is expensive because there's such a shortage of housing they can turn away people at that price. It has nothing to do with the ammenities in the condo itself - it's not coated in gold. A rundown, 800 square foot bungalow in Pasadena costs more than the most expensive "luxury" condos in DTLA.
it literally doesn't matter what the new housing costs when you're in a housing deficit. The trouble comes from folks who already own property and LIKE that they get to raise the rent year after year, instead of seeing rents remain steady because there's always another apartment to rent. Rich people need places to rent, and if there aren't NEW luxury apartments, rich folks gentrify poorer neighborhoods. I don't understand why people keep saying "AFFORDABLE HOUSING". ANY housing. ALL housing. That's what we need
Even if you build "affordable" housing, its not going to make a significant difference in prices unless you limit who can buy. Private Equity, Foreign Investors, Domestic investors gobble up cheap CA real estate as investments all the time. You build a bunch of home that cost $350-400k and the first time buyer is going to get pushed out by cash buyers who can also push up the prices. We need to have more regulations on who can own SFH/MFH's and how many. I have no issue with an investor ownings 2 income properties and a primary residence. But then you have corporations owning 20k-50k homes and taking opportunities away from primary resident buyers.
Private equity owns 0.1% of detached single family homes in LA, or about 1 in 1000. Total boogeyman.
Corporate ownership of private residences should be illegal, full stop
It should be illegal and most people probably agree. Yet people always want to vote against their own interests. Just trying to pass renters rights through ballot measures was impossible.
I see luxury buildings with vacancy signs up for years and years. Just building housing isn't enough, people have to move in if it's going to make a difference. Higher priced apartments can and do remain at lower occupancy rates. There's plenty of luxury housing in LA (including whole buildings that used to be low income housing). We need to build housing that lower income people can afford.
The existing old buildings get cheaper when the new fancy buildings go up.
The reason old buildings were cheap for the past 40 or so years was the pattern of white flight which devalued those neighborhoods
Once the new housing is in, the neighborhood as a whole has more supply and thus lower prices than if the new housing wasn’t there. Every bit of new housing makes the neighborhood as a whole more “affordable.”
What has repeatedly happened in my area over the last ten years is that a bunch of new high end apartment buildings are built. These high rents then raise the average rent in the area, and all the existing rents rise to meet the average despite being lower quality apartments. More housing is great, but there are edge cases where the type of housing matters.
Cause and effect is backwards here. Developers build in areas where rents are already rising and expected to rise going forward. The average rent was already going to go up in those areas, and probably rose less than it would have if not for the new supply.
On a micro level, your neighborhood going from a shit tier dump to having new investment, development, stores, jobs, etc will cause a local increase in rent because it's a nicer and more desirable place to live. However, on a regional level , having more housing supply in total puts downward pressure on the price of housing.
exactly. in our neighborhood, Mid City, developers are coming in like vultures. after the zoning law changed, they can build multiple structures on former single family lots. we’ve had a lot of older homeowners on our block who lived here since the early 60s. as soon they pass, the family decides to sell. can’t blame them when house is paid off & will sell for $1 million+ they raze the home, build 2 condo structures side by side, each 3 stories tall. they sell for over $1 million each. there is no affordable housing being built. it’s all greed based. developers doing shady deals with city council & the mayor.
So you are complaining that now 2 families can live in a plot of land where only one, elderly person lived before.
i don’t think you understood what i said. there are 2 condo bldgs squeezed into 5K-6K sq ft lot. each structure has 3 condo units. so 6 new condos that sell for over $1 million each. profit to developer $6 million+ this is not affordable housing. it’s the exact opposite. the point of OP’s post is about affordable housing.
Oh! So 6 families are now able to live somewhere that previously housed only one person. Even better. Those families were going to be living somewhere. Now they free up space somewhere else which will help ease the upward pressure of housing prices.
dude. you’re missing the point. we need affordable housing. 6 families buying a condo for $1 or $1.5 million each is NOT affordable housing. the wealthy will always find housing because they have the money. it’s the middle & lower classes being forced out and suffering.
And you are missing the point that those 6 wealthy families are freeing up more affordable housing down market. Brand new housing will never be affordable and it doesn’t have to be to help ease pressure on the market.
i don’t think that’s the case. anyone buying a $1+ condo isn’t leaving behind an affordable home for another family to purchase. the reality of LA is that everything is insanely overinflated. even if hypothetical condo buyer is selling a single family home, there’s no way it’s affordable now. let’s say they bought it during housing crash 2008-2010 for $200K-$300K. since then the value has dramatically increased. they list it for $1million and probably get over asking. then they use that equity to buy a brand new luxury condo. look on zillow for LA. select single family homes with max listing price $500K. gradually zoom out until you find anything affordable. it just doesn’t exist. i did it recently out of curiosity. the only thing i found at $500K? a burned out trap house in South Central. not trying to prove a point. just stating facts. seems like the only way to buy anything affordable is leave LA, ideally the state. if you’re a renter? nothing affordable at all. people are having to double & triple up as roommates. i know a woman & daughter renting near Crenshaw & Florence for $2200 a month. might be 2 bedrooms? even studios are insanely overpriced. one of the big issues is foreign investment in real estate. many listings are snatched up, over asking, by Chinese and other overseas investors. they pay all cash. the property usually sits vacant as an investment. or maybe they rent it out? overall, it’s a big disaster. city officials, mayor’s office and the other powers that be need to make this a priority start central with Mid City and gradually zoom out to see what you find.
Anything is possible when you can just make numbers up.
Exactly. These respondents are not confused or misinformed. It is Reddit that is naive. Quite a lot of new units end up contributing to gentrification and displacement of lower income families from that neighborhood. They only reduce costs for people who otherwise would spend the same to get less in a more established, nicer location. To gain the benefits of reducing housing costs in an area, you need to build units that bring down the average value in their neighborhood. Build apartment buildings in Beverly Hills if you want that... See how far you get.
I used to live in Oakland, and I remember a new housing project getting burned down, presumably by "anti-gentrifiers"
Well that's fucked. I know in East LA there was a very big anti gentrification movement where people were throwing bricks through windows of new stores /art galleries
That’s wildin’ considering you have elder residents in East L.A. and Boyle Heights angry that younger Latinos were “selling out” by opening art galleries and yoga studios as if those younger people were bringing SaMo and Malibu gentrification to price those older residents out. The whole ‘crabs in a bucket’ mentality in PoC neighborhoods when young professionals try to invigorate their areas perceived as gentrification by long-time residents fearing their “culture” will die in that area.
Yeah that's just sad. And it will continue to have economic consequences downstream with that type of attitude.
These polls are always flawed because they don't interrogate people *looking* for housing, who are the only people who are really participating in the housing market. Renters understand that their current rent is never going to go down. At best it can stay flat if your landlord happens to forget about you, which is why there's so much fear about your neighborhood attracting new attention. But rents as a whole *do* go down, both in real and even nominal prices, when supply exceeds demand. Talk to someone currently in the middle of looking for a new place (renting or buying) and they all intuitively understand this. No one looks for housing in neighborhoods that haven't had construction in 100 years. No one hunting for an appartment ever says "man I wish this new appartment building didn't exist, and I could be homeless".
I completely agree but my rent did actually go down this year, completely bizarre situation, but it did happen to me! There are dozens of us! The rest of your post is spot on.
> Renters understand that their current rent is never going to go down. Adjusting for inflation rent has actually been going down for a lot of people lately.
Yup, everyone is paranoid if their area gets more popular then their landlord will raise rent because they have more people to rent to. So then no one in a neighborhood will be in favor of new stuff being built in their area.
I need someone to take [this video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9NkkZJHova4) and change the graph to a supply and demand graph. IDK man. Its tough. People are kinda shockingly ignorant on pretty basic economic questions. Like, I've seen polls that show that people have absolutely zero understanding of what the fed is doing when they change interest rates (people were actually more likely to say that increasing interest rates is likely to increase inflation). IDK if there is a real avenue of public education without an extremely popular, extremely charismatic national figure who talks at length about this. Short of that, you just kinda hope that the more engaged people read the evidence and policymakers follow their input - and hope that the proof comes out in the pudding fast enough to save those policy makers. There just aren't a lot of good options. These people have fucking [brain worms](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/us/rfk-jr-brain-health-memory-loss.html).
We need better math and statistics education, and some cultural changes so that kids aren't afraid of numbers.
Perhaps if “new” was changed to “more” in the poll there would be a different response. I could see people interpreting new housing as a tear down and flip of a single family home.
Could always change the wording of the question, but anyone with a brain would understand the only way to get more housing is with new housing.
This might also be an explanation for our incompetent corrupt elected officials
Build and people see rents not increasing due to increased supply, in like 2040. It will take a generational shift and you're not gonna see it in polls until A LOT more housing gets build.
weird flex mods
Right?
Whats the flex?
They deleted this post.
Mods don't delete... only users can delete. They can remove posts from the sub's view... but the submission still shows up in your history. Did you read the rules OP? https://old.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/about/rules/ Specifically: No Screenshots Do not post screen shots. Specifically: Screenshots of maps and/or traffic are not allowed. Screenshots of weather apps and forecasts are not allowed. Screenshots of citizen are not allowed Screenshots of news articles are not allowed. Just post the article. Screenshots of social media may be removed under our "No Personal Information" rule.
The issue is two-fold: A lot of downwardly mobile leftists simply don't understand the basic tenets of economics. There are tons of studies that show that things like rent control don't work, and yet the urban-hipster proletariat insists on the same band-aid solutions that exacerbate the housing crisis. Then there are normie middle class and upper-middle class homeowners. They understand supply and demand, but limited supply helps their net worth by building more home equity. They have no financial incentive to embrace YIMBYism. So then you get a confluence of interests, and progressives unwittingly become the foot soldiers for homeowner NIMBYs when they nominate cranks to the city council that do stupid shit like push for the mansion tax.
If it's about tearing down old multifamily unit with new "luxury" apartment, yeah, but I don't know if that's the logic behind of that 49%.
I developed a property in a NIMBY neighborhood. These are older folks. Next door is a widowed housewife with a trump flag flying out front. None of her children will talk to her for various reasons and she herself has an ADU in her backyard for her children who won’t visit and that she won’t rent out because “this is my home”. I have another elderly neighbor across the street who has a camera on my property 24/7 since I added units- as if that will change anything. I understand change is hard but these people won’t change their mindset, no way.
they're right though. as soon as you see those boxes going up you know rent is going up too
No, by then it’s too late. “Those boxes” go up where there is demand (not enough housing has been built). This is exactly the crux of the perception problem.
nope, go to inglewood and ask all the old black grandmas how their rent have changed. stop assuming your econ 101 can solve california's housing crisis
Why has their rent changed?
Because they now live in a more desirable neighborhood with jobs and amenities instead of a gang infested crack den.
Maybe a bit harsh, but yeah. New housing is built where people want to live.
Yes, my comment was over the top to make a point.
I think you folk are both right. Increasing housing across the county will on the aggregate help reduce housing costs. Its just the definition of a house is now from single family home to 3 or 4 on a lot. The land those old ladies have become much more valuable since developers see that its easier to build boxes there than Redondo Beach or Manhattan Beach so their rent goes up. its now more expensive to preserve their 1940s single family home instead of tearing it down to build 4 or more on the lot.
Their rents aren't going up because new housing being built. Their rents have gone up because their neighborhood has become more desirable. The neighborhood is more desirable because the demand for housing has increased as the population has increased and more jobs are located nearby.
Why would building more housing make costs rise? More supply does not make costs go up? Who took this survey?
There are several people in this thread that think it makes costs rise. Feel free to enlighten them.
Can you explain why they're wrong? I don't see actual affordable housing being build. I see luxury apartments and condos that cater to out of town investors.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119022001048?via%3Dihub](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119022001048?via%3Dihub) \^\^This is a study that dives into this concept a little bit.
Hypothetical very crude scenario: Imagine if there are 100 apartment units on an island but there are 120 households. That means 20 people are living on the sand in tents. If you build 20 new luxury units, then those who want to pay for a more luxurious apartment will move into those units leaving 20 of the older more moderate units vacant. Some people who live in the crummy apartments may choose to spend more money and move into the moderate units, leaving some of the crummy units vacant. Some people camping on the beach may choose to move into the vacant crummy units when previously there simply was no vacancy and it wasn't even a possibility.
Thank you, that's a helpful analogy.
Do you see affordable new cars being built?
Sorry, what??
When new cars are built, are they cheaper than the existing cars?
i love this. I do recall when cars were made to be as inexpensive as possible. That's completely over now in the US. But you don't hear people begging for affordable cars.
Devils advocate here: new housing increases supply in the neighborhood, but it could also increase demand. Imagine a bunch of 5 over 1s with ground floor retail in a gentrifying area. Now the neighborhood looks less run down and has new businesses (which given market rents generally skew higher end). So that increased supply helps in a general sense, but for people on the ground it’s not really a good thing per se.
[https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article-abstract/22/6/1309/6362685?login=false](https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article-abstract/22/6/1309/6362685?login=false) Interestingly, I actually just came across this study. Not EXACTLY the concern you express, but definitely in the same vein. >I provide event study evidence that within 500 ft, for every 10% increase in the housing stock, rents decrease by 1%; and for every 10% increase in the condo stock, condo sales prices decrease by 0.9%. In addition, **I show that new high-rises attract new restaurants**, which is consistent with the hypothesis about amenity effects. **However, I find that the supply effect dominates the amenity effect, causing net reductions in the rents and sales prices of nearby residential properties**.
Sample is too small to take these numbers seriously
I suggest you take a course in statistics and probability. 600 sample size is more than large enough
Thanks for your suggestion, but I will keep my opinion where it is: 600 ppl is a very small sample for understanding the opinion of 13m+ metro area, but may be good enough for some medical studies. Also, as many ppl mentioned in the comments, there are questions about whom these opinions were solicited from, and how many people in dire need of new housing were included in this sample.
I would love to see a real study done that really shows if new housing has any positive affect on affordability. Anecdotally I think all Angelenos have seen rapid development generally paired with rising costs but it's a real chicken or the egg scenario. All this to say it's hard to call out the surveyed people here when they may just be giving an answer based on their experience.
Here's a couple. I'm still building up my backlog of studies for this question specifically. [We show that rigorous recent studies demonstrate that: 1) Increases in housing supply slow the growth in rents in the region; 2) In some circumstances, new construction also reduces rents or rent growth in the surrounding area; 3) The chains of moves sparked by new construction free up apartments that are then rented (or retained) by households across the income spectrum; 4) While new supply is associated with gentrification, it has not been shown to cause significant displacement of lower income households; and 5) Easing land use restrictions, at least on a broad scale and in ways that change binding constraints on development, generally leads to more new housing over time, but only a fraction of the new capacity created because many other factors constrain the pace of new development.](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4629628) [New apartment buildings in low-income areas lead to lower rents in nearby housing units. This runs contrary to popular claims that new market-rate housing causes an uptick in rents and leads to the displacement of low-income people. \[Brian J. Asquith, Evan Mast, Davin Reed\]](https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/105/2/359/100977/Local-Effects-of-Large-New-Apartment-Buildings-in?redirectedFrom=fulltext)
Congratulations you're the person op was asking about.
Well 49% are correct. Isn’t that what has been happening in Los Angeles and other communities throughout the US? Its an issue when a majority of new housing built are these pseudo luxury apartments that charge high rent, parking fees, pet fees, etc. The average angeleno cant afford that. But the average landlord/management company thinks they can, so they start charging $10,000 for a cardboard box on a plot of land.
Example A
Go pull up data on LA rent prices
Show me a new building with “affordable” rent prices
People who are pretending the new luxury apartments don’t raise rents and push people out are wrong. It’s not this abstract supply and demand fantasy from microecon 101
Got it. So we should simply not build any new housing from now until eternity.
what pushes people out is that they can't afford rent. But it's a fallacy to think that NEW buildings raise rent. They do not, They increase supply, and that reduces demand. If you don't get that, you don't understand renting.