- “One year ago, Portland enacted inclusionary zoning. One year later, “apartment construction in Portland has fallen off a cliff.”” [@michael_hendrix citing Dirk VanderHart, Portland Mercury] Better policy is to focus on building supposedly unaffordable housing [Scott Sumner]
- Intractable problems of residential zoning and of public schooling in the U.S. have a great deal to do with each other [Salim Furth, American Affairs]
- New NBER study “suggests building energy codes hurt the poor, too” [Vanessa Brown Calder, Cato]
- Upzoning of Dumbo helped catalyze Brooklyn’s revival [Ira Stoll] How Henry George and followers influenced NYC property and tax policy, and the tax deal that helped touch off the Manhattan building boom of the 1920s [Daniel Wortel-London, The Metropole]
- How to live in some apartments forever without paying, and more tips for unscrupulous NYC tenants [Jeremiah Budin, Curbed]
- For “but,” read “therefore”: “Marin County has long resisted growth in the name of environmentalism. But high housing costs and segregation persist.” [David Henderson, quoting]
Filed under: Bay Area, land use and zoning, landlord tenant law, NYC, Oregon, schools
One Comment
In re Portland. Duh.
When will the statists get it through their neutron star dense heads that the way to get a higher quantity of lower cost housing is to reduce regulation and relax zoning.
Those sub market priced apartments are being paid for by someone, namely the other tenants in the building.
Seattle doesn’t get it either. They changed the zoning law to outlaw market based low cost micro apartments. In the process they got fewer numbers of units at higher rents, and the “affordable” ones are now costing taxpayers via subsidies. Lets see….what to choose, what to choose? More, lower rent apartments that cost zero taxpayer dollars to be affordable or fewer, higher rent apartments that cost taxpayers a boatload to subsidize? Lets choose the latter, since we can virtue signal about “helping”.