Do the Affordable Housing Laws Work?

[pixelsand8]

I lived in a basement apartment in Cambridge for a little under a year. I found it to be a dreary experience and one I only put up with because I was desperate. As temporary housing (6-12 months) I think it's fine but anything longer than that can have really bad long term effects on the psyche and that's not even to get into the possible issues with flood damage, sewage backup and egress. I'm not against the legalization move (especially since these apartments already exist) but it's not some slam dunk no-brainer solution to any housing problems. What I'd rather see is a push for ADU's to be constructed in driveways and backyards and other underutilized above grade space.

 

[JumboBuc]

I lived in a basement apartment in Cambridge for a little under a year. I found it to be a dreary experience and one I only put up with because I was desperate. As temporary housing (6-12 months) I think it's fine but anything longer than that can have really bad long term effects on the psyche and that's not even to get into the possible issues with flood damage, sewage backup and egress. I'm not against the legalization move (especially since these apartments already exist) but it's not some slam dunk no-brainer solution to any housing problems. What I'd rather see is a push for ADU's to be constructed in driveways and backyards and other underutilized above grade space.

Crappy apartments = cheap apartments. The unappealing aspects of living in a basement will be priced into rents. As long as a space does not put its tenants in actual danger, it should be allowed.

Sewage backup and egress are issues of building code, not zoning code. This change allows basement spaces that meet all relevant building and safety codes to be rented out. Previously, a space could meet all code but still be illegal just by virtue of being in a basement.

Converting existing above-grade space into new housing would be great too, but underutilized basement space is way more plentiful. ADUs by their nature need to be constructed, so they're always going to have to clear bigger hurdles.

Basement units of course won't solve the housing crisis on their own, but I can think of no lower-hanging fruit to pick than them.

 

[pixelsand8]

Crappy apartments = cheap apartments. The unappealing aspects of living in a basement will be priced into rents. As long as a space does not put its tenants in actual danger, it should be allowed

In my experience this isn't really the case. Crappy apartments are cheaper than decent ones but by a fairly negligible amount. The main benefit is that they tend to be easier to get because there is so much turnover, but the turnover happens because they suck to live in.

 

[George_Apley]

In my experience this isn't really the case. Crappy apartments are cheaper than decent ones but by a fairly negligible amount. The main benefit is that they tend to be easier to get because there is so much turnover, but the turnover happens because they suck to live in.

^ This.

 

[JumboBuc]

In my experience this isn't really the case. Crappy apartments are cheaper than decent ones but by a fairly negligible amount. The main benefit is that they tend to be easier to get because there is so much turnover, but the turnover happens because they suck to live in.

An apartment turns over quickly when it's overpriced. An apartment rarely (or never) turns over when it's underpriced.

If your experience is that crappy apartments aren't any cheaper but always turn over, that means you're looking at overpriced crappy apartments. For every overpriced crappy apartment that always turns over there are many accurately priced (i.e.: cheaper) crappy apartments that don't turn over. You don't see those, though, because they're occupied.

This is classic selection bias. The apartments you see are the vacant ones, and they're vacant because they're overpriced. The apartments that are accurately priced aren't vacant, and because they aren't vacant you don't see them. Thus, most of the apartments you see are overpriced, and so the sample on which you base your judgment of the price of crappy apartments is biased.

 

[pixelsand8]

An apartment turns over quickly when it's overpriced. An apartment rarely (or never) turns over when it's underpriced.

If your experience is that crappy apartments aren't any cheaper but always turn over, that means you're looking at overpriced crappy apartments. For every overpriced crappy apartment that always turns over there are many accurately priced (i.e.: cheaper) crappy apartments that don't turn over. You don't see those, though, because they're occupied.

This is classic selection bias. The apartments you see are the vacant ones, and they're vacant because they're overpriced. The apartments that are accurately priced aren't vacant, and because they aren't vacant you don't see them. Thus, most of the apartments you see are overpriced, and so the sample on which you base your judgment of the price of crappy apartments is biased.

This is a bit simplistic, an apartment can be accurately priced and still turnover a lot. Plenty of landlords would rather collect the most amount of rent on a monthly basis than have a stable tenant. Because Boston's vacancy rate is so low due to insane demand, they are never going to have much issue filling even the crappiest of apartments. Now sure there are some crappy reasonably priced apartments that aren't turning over much, but that's usually a result of landlords who are older and perhaps don't need the income and prefer the stability of a good tenant. In my experience however, most landlords would rather take the extra money.

So really it's not a matter of the crappy apartments available being "overpriced" - they are priced right around where people are willing to pay. It's more that cheaper crappy apartments are under-priced according to the market. At any moment the landlord could kick out their tenant (most of these dwellings are month to month) and jack up the rent 400$/month (or whatever it is), they just choose not to.