Submitted by iwantmypinkshirtback t3_10p6gkf in Maine
MapoTofuWithRice t1_j6jkvn0 wrote
Reply to comment by WelcomeToTheBough in Evictions in Maine shot up during 2022, with filings growing 27% by iwantmypinkshirtback
New construction makes homes more affordable—even for those who can't afford the new units
Letting the free market build where people want to live makes housing cheaper.
WelcomeToTheBough t1_j6jm4k1 wrote
Nope, you can't cite it in Cali real evidence. How is putting duplex's in low income places helping renters? Cause thats how things went in Cali. All you can cite is real estate BS, if it worked so well it would be in front of us. Portland has built a ton and prices go up! As long as you have great demand, why are they gonna lessen rents? These aren't widgets you are flooding the market with they are rents.... Landlords can fill rentals with tech workers and such.
MapoTofuWithRice t1_j6joj1m wrote
Portland, and Maine in general, have only scratched the surface of meeting its housing demand. It might seem like there is a lot of construction, but this is nothing compared to where it needs to be. Maine is a hot commodity and people with money aren't going to stop moving here because we wish it. By stagnating housing supply you aren't punish tech workers or other boogieman with money- you're punishing people without the money to compete with them. If you don't build a new mid or high-rise they'll live in an old townhouse that might have otherwise remained affordable.
WelcomeToTheBough t1_j6jp6qx wrote
We should leverage zoning changes to force non market rate units. Its totally neoliberal BS to say "well let them build anything and hope". Again doesn't mater what style company you have, you sell things to make money. Real estate is gonna build $1900 rents and $500k homes. I for one don't agree to the politics of letting them do it.
​
Housing DOESNT trickle down.
MapoTofuWithRice t1_j6jqt4u wrote
How would we leverage zoning changes to force non market rate units?
WelcomeToTheBough t1_j6jrjyq wrote
If they want a zoning change over here for a bunch of $1900 rents, I don't give it to them unless say 30 percent are at 80 percent of income somewhere in town from them. Any idea you've given up leveraging them when you upzone everything. Again housing doesn't trickle down and finally I think its fine to say "hey we don't need rentals in an area that can flood soon".
MapoTofuWithRice t1_j6jsu0i wrote
Cities have tried to implement that kind of requirement for more than a decade and it never works. If you attach such an onerous affordable housing requirement to a development then the developer will laugh their way to another zip code and build somewhere else.
Give this a watch if you have some time:
WelcomeToTheBough t1_j6ju1i0 wrote
ive followed the issue for a decade. I don't support no more local democracy for real estate goals. Its so funny if this is such a great idea, its not working anywhere!
​
The crisis is about sub 100k people IMO. If you want an $1800 rent and can swing it , your fine. Live in Boston, live in Maine. If you have money America is fine.
​
YIMBYism is a fake movement created by Peter Thiel and techies in Cali. Ive watched it spread last decade :)
​
If you think its progressive to deregulate housing, you be you.
MapoTofuWithRice t1_j6juet7 wrote
Can you show me examples of where deregulating zoning laws and aggressively densifying have failed?
WelcomeToTheBough t1_j6jyl8q wrote
California! Prices are going up... Again stop playing stupid here, you are the one agreeing to these insane premises. How many times do I need to type, Portland put in more units since 2010 and HAS LESS PEOPLE.
​
https://truthout.org/articles/yimbys-the-alt-right-darlings-of-the-real-estate-industry/
raggedtoad t1_j6k4ani wrote
Everyone who understands the macroeconomics of real estate supply and demand agrees that nationally, the housing supply in the US has been lagging behind demand badly since the financial crisis in 2007-2009.
Building more units is the only solution. The market will self correct. If there is bureaucracy and zoning red tape preventing construction, then it will prolong the pain of high rents for everyone.
WelcomeToTheBough t1_j6k68i6 wrote
LOL the market will self correct. The market tolerates people on the streets! Again your side makes up shit about NIMBY political power. Yes the industry wants to make as much money as it can. Your sides supports catering to tech workers and other well offs.
Whats next more BMWs made in 2023 to lower used car prices?
raggedtoad t1_j6k7fib wrote
Literally yes. Taking your car example we have just gone through a supply/demand induced price crunch, and now that supply chains are getting back to normal, automakers are lowering prices, dealerships are offering incentives again, and used car prices are plummeting.
So... Nice point?
I think you're confusing basic supply and demand economics with Reagan-esque trickle down nonsense. They are not the same.
WelcomeToTheBough t1_j6k7zx5 wrote
its rent seeking, you can sit on empty units or airbnb them to keep prices up (they do it, google it). They aren't widgets pig they are homes. You don't care if poor and broke Mainer's suffer.
​
You are literally promoting trickle down housing and you cant cite it working in a popular market like California because it doesn't work if a bunch of well off people can move in!
raggedtoad t1_j6k9i1q wrote
What the hell is "trickle down housing"? You're talking out of your ass.
If you allow developers to build nice, new townhouses in Westbrook for all the out-of-state tech bros to move into, it will free up apartments in all the older 4-6 unit buildings and the price pressure will be reduced. It's seriously the most basic supply and demand equation you could imagine.
The only issue is if developers are knocking down older housing stock to build new, but I'm not aware of that happening en masse.
WelcomeToTheBough t1_j6ka7h1 wrote
no it doesn't! If you still have demand (which is only growing with people moving here) the rents stay up in the "older units". Your claiming prices trickle down! Again Cali rents aren't going down. Your premise that what will be built under new up zoning beats overall demand, show me that because its bs!
​
YIMBYS want it both ways
Free market extremism (build whatever basically)
​
and the magic claim it backfills demand, when the market doesn't mind people in the streets or at moms house! It cares about capturing max returns and renting to poor people doesn't pay for buildings!
raggedtoad t1_j6kihlg wrote
So if we built 200,000 units of housing in Maine overnight, just for the sake of argument, your claim is that 200,000 people would appear out of nowhere and rents would continue to climb?
C'mon, man.
[deleted] t1_j6kkyu7 wrote
[deleted]
raggedtoad t1_j6ku00d wrote
It's a debate strategy. I'm picking an absurd extreme to make a point, which is that reality lies somewhere between my extreme and what the person I'm arguing with is saying.
We can't have a rational debate based solely on platitudes and ideologies. I am 100% sure that more housing fixes housing shortages.
[deleted] t1_j6kvc38 wrote
[deleted]
raggedtoad t1_j6kwmso wrote
If you even read my comment a few spots up this thread you'd already know my stance on that.
It doesn't matter if developers build higher end new stuff (which they largely will), because it still frees up older and less desirable supply which should be renting for a lot less than it is.
If you want the Old Port to look like it did in the 1970s, enact a bunch of restrictive rent control and lower income construction requirements and wait 20 years.
The Old Port is literally the charming hipster foodie destination it is because people with money want to live there...
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments