A Map of the U.S. by Property Value Instead of Land Area

Posted by Poplicola 5 years, 2 months ago to Economics
20 comments | Share | Flag

I would like to see a map of where Rent Control and "affordable housing" rules have destroying the private sector's incentive to create reasonably priced new housing. I'm sure the same counties would be highlighted.

Such practices are particularly unpalatable because they amount to the government forcing landlords to rent nice flats at a loss to potentially disruptive tenants at the risk of their driving down overall rental values and the certainty that their subsidized presence will fuel ongoing resentment from neighbors whose rents will have to inflated to subsidize their "protected" neighbors.

The article seems to be predicated on the belief that everyone has a right to live anywhere they want whether they can afford it or not.
SOURCE URL: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/07/mapping-the-us-by-property-value-instead-of-land-area/397841/

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by johnpe1 5 years, 2 months ago
    doesn't this fit right in with FDR's second bill of rights -- everyone
    deserves a good job, a good house, a good retirement, etc......
    the essence of communism. -- j
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 2 months ago
    "The stubborn unwillingness of incumbent homeowners"
    A stubborn unwillingness to sell something at less than the going rate is normal and healthy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 5 years, 2 months ago
    I agree with Poplicola's comment but it's not the whole story.

    The real problem creating housing shortages is the scam known as urban planning -- in which local governments (controlled by the existing homeowners) keep most of the unbuilt land off the market by force of law in order to drive home prices up as high as possible and keep them there. So long as this cartel arrangement operates, there will be an artificial shortage of homes.

    Most countries have the same problem -- but at least in poor countries there are areas outside most cities where illegal building is tolerated, greatly reducing the number of homeless people. But no jurisdiction in the US will do that; they apparently believe that it's better to be homeless than to live in "unsafe" housing. Yet another area in which the Left dismisses others' suffering with "Let them eat cake."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 2 months ago
      Well said. I would add one more thing: a lot of it is about jurisdictional control for the purpose of taxing. The city only incorporates new additions to the city so it can then assess taxes on them. Sometimes they even condone providing services for their generosity. ;)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BradA 5 years, 2 months ago
    Regarding your thoughts about rent control, I've had to consider this recently as a city where I have rentals is considering some form of rent control. I realized that there is a counterintuitive result of rent control. Nearly all landlords I know are complacent about their rents once someone has moved in. If you've got a good renter, it is easy to justify not raising the rent because of the cost and risk of finding a replacement who might not be as good. In a rent control environment there is a yearly adjustment or limit on how much you can raise a rent. This amount actually makes it easier to justify raising rents yearly because 1) the government says it is OK and 2) if you don't raise the rent, the government might not allow you to do so in the future. So, depending on the type of rent control (vacancy decontrol, eviction limitations, etc) overall the affect on an individual landlord is going to be a mixed bag.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 5 years, 2 months ago
      Indeed. Most cities in California have what I call "weak" rent control -- that is, when a unit becomes vacant the landlord can charge the next tenant whatever he wants. Thus, rents in those places are usually around market value in spite of rent control (except for the rare tenant who stays put for many years). The purpose of rent control in places like that is not to lower rents, but to enforce "renters rights" laws (typically meaning no eviction except for specified reasons) on landlords.

      The exceptions I know in California are Berkeley and Santa Monica, and those are places I wouldn't want to live anyway because of outrageous laws on other topics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 5 years, 2 months ago
    If you want to know the REAL, FULL reason why housing prices are completely off the rails, just read "The Housing Boom and Bust," by Thomas Sowell. The author is out to lunch by inferring that it's the homeowners who are responsible for the high prices and limited supply. As usual, it's the government that's the culprit. Land use restrictions, rent control, height limitations and other meddling serve to blow the value of land off the map in areas where the GOVERNMENT is allowed to interfere with the market.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 years, 2 months ago
    I wish the City had not condemned the apartment
    building I lived in last year. It was alleged to be un-
    safe. I disagreed. But anyway, I had not gone to
    the City and complained. And if I choose to live in
    an old run-down shack, it's nobody"s G--d----d
    business but mine and the landlord's. Now I
    live in a place the costs nearly twice as much.
    Apparently, the City turned it over to some
    scavenger who likes to "gentrify" buildings, and
    I heard something about a message from her,
    but I really don't want to deal with her. If she
    uses the government to take other people's
    property away, then it seems to me that renting
    from her would be like receiving stolen goods.
    (Aside from the fact that I probably couldn't
    afford it anyway).

    ---Oh well. Mark Twain once said, (I am quoting
    from memory), "There is not a foot of land on
    earth that is in possession of its rightful owner."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 5 years, 2 months ago
    Housing shortages are not accidental. The government, as it implements UN Agenda 21, will continue to cause the price of property to soar. Ase Agenda 21 impacts the local planning in cities across the US, more land will be out of circulation, and the remaining inner city land will be beyond the means of the ordinary working person. Meanwhile, Hillary will likely continue her quest to place the homeless in the spare bedrooms of those who can afford to have that much space.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 5 years, 2 months ago
      Agreed. Talk about "Agenda 21" and the UN still sounds paranoid to a lot of people, so you might mention that Agenda 21 is also called "smart growth" and/or "sustainable communities" by those who promote it. The real point, of course, is to limit the availability of nice homes to the old-money elite.

      When they start talking "sustainability" I try to reframe the discussion by talking about our current levels of government spending. THAT isn't sustainable!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Stormi 5 years, 2 months ago
        Problem is, they are getting wise to the fact people know that "smart growth" and "sustainable" are key words meaning UN Agenda 21. Now they are trying end runs around those phrases to deceive people. Meanwhile local yocals in city and county government have no clue what they are buying into and how they are not protecting property rights of citizens.Agenda 21 is aimed at herding everyone into urban apartments, no yards, rich and poor alike (except politicians and I assume Hollywood types). The cost of having even such a cramped place will be way beyond the average Joe. Sad.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jdg 5 years, 2 months ago
          No, neither Agenda 21 nor "urban planning" has ever been about "rich and poor alike", and that's a good point to attack given that most people who support the scams are lefties.

          Why do you think the Sierra Club has the same demographics as Marin County? The real motive of the leaders of the green movement has always been to keep us middle class riff-raff down, so they, our betters, can continue to enjoy the unbuilt land near their big, beautiful homes and the resulting lack of traffic in their neighborhoods. After all, since they've already got theirs, no more nice homes need to be built, right? Besides, someone [ethnic] might move next door to them. Can't have that. And best of all, all the useful idiots who make up the rank-and-file of the green movement will give the Sierra Clubbers credit for "saving the planet" by enacting all these exclusionary laws.

          (Understand I have no issue with rich people living well -- unless they use cronyism to prevent others from doing the same. Here, they are doing just that.)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Stormi 5 years, 2 months ago
            The whole thing is about control, and that includes every socio-economic group, other than the one worlders who claim the right to control us. They don't want anyone, other than the self-appointed leaders to have homes or yards, thus "population density", etc. They want people where they can control every aspect of their lives.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 5 years, 2 months ago
    "The article seems to predicated on the belief that everyone has a right to live anywhere they want whether they can afford it or not."
    Sounds very similar to the law which set up the housing crash a few years back, which forced lenders to forgo good financial practices when processing a home loan in the favor of minority status.
    That didn't turn out well for anybody. Government at its finest, at the expense of the rest of us. As always.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 2 months ago
    I had a condo in San Diego. After only 6 years I was able to sell it for twice what I paid along with a few minor fix-ups that were needed. It was a beautiful place. The complex had 81 units in the style of a Spanish Villa. Five fountains, a pool and Jacuzzi, a sauna and two racquetball courts and two tennis courts.The only problem was that I was newly retired at the time and the cost of living plus the taxes made it a losing proposition to live there. We moved to Florida where there was family and most importantly, grandchildren. Just as a comparison, at the time we moved (1995) the price of a house like mine (4bdrm 2 bath) would cost 4 times more in S.D. than I paid on the west coast of Florida and 2 times more on the east coast. Plus, no state, county, or city income taxes. That means a part-time retirement job was viable. What a difference a few miles makes. Of course, the fact that we sold as the bubble was getting started and bought before it was speeding up made it almost a perfect time to sell or buy or as we did -- both.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryHeart 5 years, 2 months ago
    I haven't a clue what the article is talking about. So many statistics that prove nothing to solve a problem that isn't clarified. I might as well say green worms caused ...well what? What is the problem here? High housing prices? Why is that a problem? People are conspiring to keep land off the market? The author doen't prove that it's just ass-U-Me-d. What does employment have to do with this? I came away from the article with nothing but a logic headache. Feh!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo