I’ve now gotten into two ‘comment fights’ about this, related to Seattle.
Seattle recently passed a new tax that will translate into… 200 units of housing a year, not newly built ( yay insane zoning laws preventing dense construction! yay NIMBYism! )…
…but existing properties purchased ( at market value of course, they could be emminent domained but thats icky and unfair to slumlord landlords)…
… and then managed bu the city to be priced for those making between 80% and 120% of Area Median Income.
Than translates to a rent of about $2500 to about $3100, for a one bedroom apartment, with two people in it.
Meanwhile, 20% of the population can’t afford a rent over $1900, and the 20% below them can’t afford rent over $600.
Those 2 20% chunks equate to about 160,000 people each, or 320,000 people altogether.
200 units a year.
320,000 people that can barely afford rent.
-.-
I point out that 200 units a year at that price point won’t do anything meaningful to the overall situation, and people downvote me saying I am impeding progress, while celebrating that this will solve the housing crisis.
I point out that there would be much more actual good than harm from something much closer to rent control… because almost all of the downsides from enacting rent control are already currently in existence because the housing ‘free’ market has failed, and everyone acts like I am economically illiterate, citing 15 year old articles at me.
I have a degree in Economics, but what do I know?
I swear to god, perma online Seattle people are the smuggest assholes in existence.
I’ve now gotten into two ‘comment fights’ about this, related to Seattle.
Seattle recently passed a new tax that will translate into… 200 units of housing a year, not newly built ( yay insane zoning laws preventing dense construction! yay NIMBYism! )…
…but existing properties purchased ( at market value of course, they could be emminent domained but thats icky and unfair to slumlord landlords)…
… and then managed bu the city to be priced for those making between 80% and 120% of Area Median Income.
Than translates to a rent of about $2500 to about $3100, for a one bedroom apartment, with two people in it.
Meanwhile, 20% of the population can’t afford a rent over $1900, and the 20% below them can’t afford rent over $600.
Those 2 20% chunks equate to about 160,000 people each, or 320,000 people altogether.
200 units a year.
320,000 people that can barely afford rent.
-.-
I point out that 200 units a year at that price point won’t do anything meaningful to the overall situation, and people downvote me saying I am impeding progress, while celebrating that this will solve the housing crisis.
I point out that there would be much more actual good than harm from something much closer to rent control… because almost all of the downsides from enacting rent control are already currently in existence because the housing ‘free’ market has failed, and everyone acts like I am economically illiterate, citing 15 year old articles at me.
I have a degree in Economics, but what do I know?
I swear to god, perma online Seattle people are the smuggest assholes in existence.