Idea for fixing the housing shortage

DominusNovus said:
As long as you’re drawing from a wider pool of supply, the more options you have to draw from, the better a fit you’ll be able to find. Even if the overall imbalance between supply and demand remains constant. When you can choose from a wider array of towns, you’re more likely to find one that is allowing enough development for you.

Just look at the numbers provided. Pittsfield prices go up 80% in 3 years, while Brockton prices have only gone ip 50% in 5. That a 26% annual growth rate vs a 10%. That makes Brockton a veritable steal.
Click to expand...
OK, I'm with you on the idea that more WFH would give more leverage to the buyers/renters who are no longer location-constrained, which should lower prices some amount. That said, I'm not convinced that it'd move the needle enough to make it worth for the state to put its thumb on the scale against RTO, especially when Boston's revenue structure is counting on RTO.
 
Real estate trade group seeks a delay in Boston's new housing inclusionary rules. The rule is set to take effect on Oct. 1 and would require that applicable housing developments have 20% affordable units, up from the current threshold of 13%. The real estate group states that the new rules would further decrease housing production. https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...BO_me&j=36819644&senddate=2024-09-23&empos=p4
 
It's not just the real estate group that says this will decrease housing production, it has been demonstrated in multiple studies and papers all over the country that this will decrease both total housing production and affordable housing production. Unfortunately, the city believes that 20% of 0 is better than 10% of 10. As long as the policy sounds good in headlines, the end results don't matter.
 
SuffolkHeights11 said:
It's not just the real estate group that says this will decrease housing production, it has been demonstrated in multiple studies and papers all over the country that this will decrease both total housing production and affordable housing production. Unfortunately, the city believes that 20% of 0 is better than 10% of 10. As long as the policy sounds good in headlines, the end results don't matter.
Click to expand...
Exactly and what this always leaves out is important too. The ppl who make too much money to qualify for subsidized housing are getting no help at all, yet they make up the largest group of renters out there. There is luxury housing being built all over the place and then within that youre getting 13% of that built as affordable units, but that leaves 0% for everybody else. For all of the ppl that fall in between the threshold of affordable and luxury housing theyre SOL.

Boston already has some of the largest inventory of public/subsidized housing stock in the entire country. As far as housing that the working class can afford we probably have some of the lowest inventory in the entire country. It should be much higher of a priority to increase the amount of housing that is available for the working class vs focusing on the small amounts of affordable housing unit requirements for luxury developments. Theyre missing the forest for the trees and if these new requirements cause even less new developments to be built the working class is going to be affected even worse.
 
SuffolkHeights11 said:
It's not just the real estate group that says this will decrease housing production, it has been demonstrated in multiple studies and papers all over the country that this will decrease both total housing production and affordable housing production. Unfortunately, the city believes that 20% of 0 is better than 10% of 10. As long as the policy sounds good in headlines, the end results don't matter.
Click to expand...
I've been wanting to reading more about this exact problem. Do you (or anyone else) have suggestions where to start?
 
ritchiew said:
I've been wanting to reading more about this exact problem. Do you (or anyone else) have suggestions where to start?
Click to expand...
To an extent it's the general problems that come from rent control. Trying to suppress prices ends up suppressing supply and then inflating prices in return.

The one form that I believe (mostly) works is combining strong tenant protections with limits on rent increases to be mostly in line with inflation for existing tenants. This also helps (somewhat) mitigate or at least slow gentrification of areas as people aren't forced out of their homes by rent increases, but landlords are free to price according to the market for new builds and tenants.

To some extent this is the best of both worlds if you can navigate the incentives nightmare created. (It is possible, free market housing in NL works this way.) Developers can get the most out of building new housing, while existing residents aren't displaced in the process.
 
Last edited:
stick n move said:
Exactly and what this always leaves out is important too. The ppl who make too much money to qualify for subsidized housing are getting no help at all, yet they make up the largest group of renters out there. There is luxury housing being built all over the place and then within that youre getting 13% of that built as affordable units, but that leaves 0% for everybody else. For all of the ppl that fall in between the threshold of affordable and luxury housing theyre SOL.

Boston already has some of the largest inventory of public/subsidized housing stock in the entire country. As far as housing that the working class can afford we probably have some of the lowest inventory in the entire country. It should be much higher of a priority to increase the amount of housing that is available for the working class vs focusing on the small amounts of affordable housing unit requirements for luxury developments. Theyre missing the forest for the trees and if these new requirements cause even less new developments to be built the working class is going to be affected even worse.
Click to expand...
Has anyone studied more tiers of "affordability". Basically require a more blended mix of low AMI housing, worker housing, mid-market housing and luxury housing? Basically not just bottom and top 10% only housing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top