[late]

@late some believe nationalizing the housing sector would solve all housing problems, as if there were no examples of catastrophic failures of public housing.

I don't think the successful countries in Europe have nationalized their housing.

You do know there is a thing called reality?

[Truth To Power]

Are you sure?

Yes.

Why would developers request (in some cases, bribe) officials to allow this or that plot of land to have its use changed to allow for a housing project?

To get money without earning it, same as the reason they fund NIMBY lobby groups to stop other landowners from developing their land.

Would they bother for building unprofitable units?

They'd rather get the money for just owning the land, without having to bother building any units. Building housing units is risky. People might not want to pay enough for them even to recoup their land and construction cost.

Not at all.

Wrong.

In theory, new towns and even cities could still be built.

So what? In theory, they could also be built in Antarctica, or on the moon.

It could, in principle, be a strategy to alleviate the zoning squeeze.

No it couldn't.

Few people will, because many of us value the amenities in already urbanized areas. But, if prices keep increasing, some people may actually give it a try - it's hard to know what will happen in the future.

It's easy to know some things that will happen. For example, it is absolutely certain that no matter how exorbitant the subsidy to landowners becomes, they will demand that it be increased.

[Pants-of-dog]

The decision to look solely at Cabrini Green is an example of cherrypicking. Why ignore Altgeld Gardens Homes?

The main problem there is toxic pollution from adjoining properties. In other words, lax zoning laws.

There are many examples of public housing in Chicago that gave been running for decades. And the CHA must be doing something right since it is the largest rental landlord in Chicago.

Even Cabrini Green does not provide an example of failure of public housing that would make public housing unworkable, since the problem (nonpaying tenants) is not even inherent to public housing.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog simple, I'm naturally focusing on Cabrini-Green and other public housing failures because you claimed nationalization of the housing stock would solve the housing problems.

In reality, there is little reason to believe so - governments can perfectly be overwhelmed by the daunting task of managing all properties in their jurisdictions and fail.

And yes, zoning is still necessary. Just having no zoning or urban planning is hardly a good alternative. But it's not necessary to be overly restrictive like many localities are.

@Truth To Power sure, many landlords would be happy not to invest or improve the land at all. Some developers may actually do that, I don't know. But we're talking about housing and that requires building.

@late do you even have a point to make?

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
Your claim that Hastings and other streets do not allow high rise development is incorrect.

I made no such claim. It is an outright fabrication on your part to evade the facts I have identified. Hastings and the other streets I identified are arterial streets, not local governments, and are accordingly incapable of allowing or prohibiting high-rise development. It is the City of Vancouver that does not allow high-rise development on Hastings or those other streets, other than for a tiny number of sites owned by politically connected developers, and only after years of delays and astronomically costly outlays to get permission (including the required political donations to corrupt city councilors -- but I repeat myself).

@wat0n
Military housing is a successful case study of public housing.

No it isn't. It is employer-owned dormitory housing for employees only.

It is not my job to disprove whatever memes the three of you have seen somewhere and decided to believe. If you have a claim, it is up to you to support it.

Your claim that current high-rise developments that can literally be counted on the fingers of one hand in any way refutes the fact the owners of literally thousands of dilapidated one- and two-story commercial structures on arterial streets are not building high-rise apartment buildings on those sites because they cannot get permission to do so is false, absurd, and disingenuous.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power sure, many landlords would be happy not to invest or improve the land at all. Some developers may actually do that, I don't know.

I do.

But we're talking about housing and that requires building.

First it requires permission to build, from both landowner and local government. Housing cannot be built when it is profitable for either of them to refuse permission. It is only profitable for them to refuse permission because idle landowning is so heavily subsidized. Not rocket science.

[wat0n]

@Truth To Power who subsidizes idle landowning?

[Truth To Power]

You all have deliberately ignored all the housing projects in the developed countries except for two and even then you could not show they had failed, only that the system is imperfect.

Public housing projects in developed countries always have to compete with private housing. I already gave you the best examples: cities like Hong Kong, Singapore and Vienna. Public monopolies only work well with natural monopolies, of which housing is not one.

[Pants-of-dog]

At this point, it is fair to say that the depiction of public housing as a failure is just a meme.

No one even disagreed with the fact that Cabrini Green failed due to problems that had nothing to do with public housing.

—————

@Truth To Power does not disagree with the fact that the high rise developments on Hastings disprove the notion that high rises cannot be built along said street. Nor does he disagree with the claim that said high rises are not affordable housing.

This disproves the claim that a lack of affordable housing along Hastings is due to a lack of high rise development.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog of course it failed due, in part, to problems with public housing. Like in NYC, there was an incentive against collecting rents.

[Truth To Power]

Yes, going by the standard of making up whatever one wishes and not providing any support at all, one could say whatever they want.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

Now, looking back on the discussion, you all started with the meme that high housing prices are due to regulations.

No, I stated the fact that it is due to the exorbitant over-subsidization of idle landowning. The market will price investments accurately. An investment that confers a legal entitlement to rob the community in perpetuity, as a private land title does, will be priced accordingly.

So we finally ran out of solutions that the market could provide and looked at government housing.

No, that is false, as you refuse to consider the possibility of a free market solution.

[Pants-of-dog]

How does public housing have an incentive to not collect rents?

——————-

What free market solutions are there for this problem?

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power who subsidizes idle landowning?

All levels of the governments of all countries where land is privately owned. The productive are forced to pay for government twice -- once in taxes to fund provision of desirable public services and infrastructure, and then again in land rent to landowners for permission to access the desirable public services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for - so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for doing and contributing exactly nothing.

[wat0n]

All levels of the governments of all countries where land is privately owned. The productive are forced to pay for government twice -- once in taxes to fund provision of desirable public services and infrastructure, and then again in land rent to landowners for permission to access the desirable public services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for - so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for doing and contributing exactly nothing.

How can landowners get money if nothing is done with the land?

[Truth To Power]

Not only has public housing shown to be viable, but every market based solution has already been examined empirically and shown to not work.

That's just baldly false. Where forced subsidization (which is not permitted in a free market, remember) of idle landholding is reduced or removed, market-based housing is typically plentiful, inexpensive, and of good quality. In statistical comparisons within the USA, homelessness and lack of affordable housing tend to be significantly worse in states with low property tax rates.

[Truth To Power]

How can landowners get money if nothing is done with the land?

By selling it at a higher price to the next owner. I know of one parcel here in Vancouver that has been vacant for over 50 years, has been owned by multiple parties, all of whom made money by owning it, even after paying the property taxes. Subdivision also typically increases land price even when nothing is done with the land.

[wat0n]

By selling it at a higher price to the next owner. I know of one parcel here in Vancouver that has been vacant for over 50 years, has been owned by multiple parties, all of whom made money by owning it, even after paying the property taxes. Subdivision also typically increases land price even when nothing is done with the land.

OK, but at some point someone will buy it to build something. Do you agree?

Speculation/aiming for capital gains can only get you so far.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's just baldly false. Where forced subsidization (which is not permitted in a free market, remember) of idle landholding is reduced or removed, market-based housing is typically plentiful, inexpensive, and of good quality. In statistical comparisons within the USA, homelessness and lack of affordable housing tend to be significantly worse in states with low property tax rates.

Do you have an example?

[Truth To Power]

How can landowners get money if nothing is done with the land?

You are trying to evade the fact that the landowner charges the user full market value just for permission to use the land. The fact that the landowner qua landowner does nothing and contributes nothing doesn't mean that nobody else does, either. The subsidy resides in the fact that the landowner is legally privileged to charge the user for the desirable services and infrastructure the user's own taxes just paid for.

It is certain that you will now try to contrive some other means to prevent yourself from knowing these facts.

[Truth To Power]

Not all of this is due to zoning, part of the problem is that those young adults are unwilling to move to places with cheaper housing as well.

No, they are merely aware, as you are not, that they will have to pay a landowner full market value for permission to work where there are employers prepared to pay decent wages, just as those employers have to pay landowners full market value for permission to hire the local workers.

If some places are choosing to zone to death, then one rational reaction would be to move to places with more lenient zoning. Yet many young adults don't.

Because economic opportunity is lacking in low-rent locations.