Plowing through the resesarch can result in a headache. Too many numbers, not enough on the ground observation of actual housing markets.
It is pointed out for example, that ony 31% of land in incorporated areas is zoned for multi-family. But what does that really mean? There are two reasons to wonder. First, could it be that only 31% of the land base is suitable for multi-family due to natural constraints and limited infrastructure? Ruling that out is a massive assumption that is not based on any data presented. Second, in many jurisdictions (you can read a recent newsletter from Addison dal Mastro describing this) do not, as a matter of policy, zone for more intense uses in advance. They allow higher density one map change at a time. That's not how I think it should be done, but I am in the minority. We know that rezoning for multi-family can be quite difficult in places. No argument there, but we also know that its not equally difficult (or even difficult at all) everywhere. So, how does the overall conclusion help us understand what to do in a particular market?
Its possible that I missed it, but in the write-up on the impacts of building codes, I never saw it acknowledged that there are plenty of jurisdictions - though not normally large ones - that do not have building codes. Why not compare building costs and see if there's a difference? I can tell you that there is no apparent difference in housing cost between the cities that have codes and the towns that don't in our small metro. I suspect that its true in at least some other markets, but who knows?
Those are just some observations rooted in watching all this go down for 50 years. Overall, as I plow through the all the formulae and all the numbers, I have to ask whether it is possible that the aggregation of data results in a picture that is not actually true of any specific housing market? I do not see how that possibility can be ruled out. It don't think its true. I think the research is probably at least partly right about at least some places, but as Wendell Berry points out "abstraction is the enemy of clear thinking."
Finally looking at your headline "5% Rent Growth Meets 3.5% Income Growth" makes me ask why there is such a huge investment in looking at the supply side of housing and so little discussion of the question that maybe, just maybe, the inequality in our economy has something to do with this?
Thanks for compiling all this. ''
Plowing through the resesarch can result in a headache. Too many numbers, not enough on the ground observation of actual housing markets.
It is pointed out for example, that ony 31% of land in incorporated areas is zoned for multi-family. But what does that really mean? There are two reasons to wonder. First, could it be that only 31% of the land base is suitable for multi-family due to natural constraints and limited infrastructure? Ruling that out is a massive assumption that is not based on any data presented. Second, in many jurisdictions (you can read a recent newsletter from Addison dal Mastro describing this) do not, as a matter of policy, zone for more intense uses in advance. They allow higher density one map change at a time. That's not how I think it should be done, but I am in the minority. We know that rezoning for multi-family can be quite difficult in places. No argument there, but we also know that its not equally difficult (or even difficult at all) everywhere. So, how does the overall conclusion help us understand what to do in a particular market?
Its possible that I missed it, but in the write-up on the impacts of building codes, I never saw it acknowledged that there are plenty of jurisdictions - though not normally large ones - that do not have building codes. Why not compare building costs and see if there's a difference? I can tell you that there is no apparent difference in housing cost between the cities that have codes and the towns that don't in our small metro. I suspect that its true in at least some other markets, but who knows?
Those are just some observations rooted in watching all this go down for 50 years. Overall, as I plow through the all the formulae and all the numbers, I have to ask whether it is possible that the aggregation of data results in a picture that is not actually true of any specific housing market? I do not see how that possibility can be ruled out. It don't think its true. I think the research is probably at least partly right about at least some places, but as Wendell Berry points out "abstraction is the enemy of clear thinking."
Finally looking at your headline "5% Rent Growth Meets 3.5% Income Growth" makes me ask why there is such a huge investment in looking at the supply side of housing and so little discussion of the question that maybe, just maybe, the inequality in our economy has something to do with this?