Big tent, baby!Auggie wrote: ↑Oct 29, 2025https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... costs.html
How one can be a senior fellow at an organization like the Show-Me Institute and also write an article that says the types of things this article says is just beyond my understanding.
He references how everything is car-centric (implying that it's bad) and how due to that, there are transit deserts. He says the only way to start changing that is to remove parking minimums.SB in BH wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2025I interned for this organization way back in the day. I can't access the article, but I'm guessing the argument goes something like this:
Standard neoclassical economics. Makes perfect sense if you completely ignore the existence of the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate industries and view the world solely through the prism of supply and demand curves.
- Housing costs are high because supply is less than demand.
- Supply is artificially low because the government imposes constraints and related costs on suppliers.
- Parking minimums are a costly government constraint (they increase construction costs and reduce the supply of land available to build, which drives up the cost of the available supply).
- Removing parking minimums will reduce the cost of building housing and make it more profitable for developers
- Profit-seeking developers will build new housing, increasing supply to meet demand.
- Matching supply with demand will reduce prices for home buyers.
Yes thats why rents have collapsed In Austin & Minneapolis. Because the Finance Insurance and Real Estate Industries there decided to not care about being rich. Nothing different about their regulatory frameworks. Nothing to learn from them.SB in BH wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2025I interned for this organization way back in the day. I can't access the article, but I'm guessing the argument goes something like this:
Standard neoclassical economics. Makes perfect sense if you completely ignore the existence of the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate industries and view the world solely through the prism of supply and demand curves.
- Housing costs are high because supply is less than demand.
- Supply is artificially low because the government imposes constraints and related costs on suppliers.
- Parking minimums are a costly government constraint (they increase construction costs and reduce the supply of land available to build, which drives up the cost of the available supply).
- Removing parking minimums will reduce the cost of building housing and make it more profitable for developers
- Profit-seeking developers will build new housing, increasing supply to meet demand.
- Matching supply with demand will reduce prices for home buyers.
i don't recall arguing that regulations weren't important or there was nothing to learn from other places, nor did say anything about FIRE being greedy or whatever you're implying there.mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2025Yes thats why rents have collapsed In Austin & Minneapolis. Because the Finance Insurance and Real Estate Industries there decided to not care about being rich. Nothing different about their regulatory frameworks. Nothing to learn from them.SB in BH wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2025I interned for this organization way back in the day. I can't access the article, but I'm guessing the argument goes something like this:
Standard neoclassical economics. Makes perfect sense if you completely ignore the existence of the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate industries and view the world solely through the prism of supply and demand curves.
- Housing costs are high because supply is less than demand.
- Supply is artificially low because the government imposes constraints and related costs on suppliers.
- Parking minimums are a costly government constraint (they increase construction costs and reduce the supply of land available to build, which drives up the cost of the available supply).
- Removing parking minimums will reduce the cost of building housing and make it more profitable for developers
- Profit-seeking developers will build new housing, increasing supply to meet demand.
- Matching supply with demand will reduce prices for home buyers.
Austin's housing market has been in a pretty big crash over the last couple of years. Rents down 15-20%, median house price peaked at around $650k but has now hovered around $600k for the last couple of years.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2025"Rents have collapsed in Austin"
Compared to what year? Like maybe there's a been a recent dip, but Austin for years was the fastest appreciating property market in the country and is still expensive. I think we all agree that parking minimums' shouldn't exist and obviously building parking garages is costly & that pushes up housing costs, HOWEVER, it is exceedingly rare for rents to EVER go down except in the context of an economic crisis or urban crisis like what happened with white flight. Because landlords are almost never willing to reduce their rents. And for that matter its also very rare that people would sell a house for less than they bought it for.
Like St. Louis didn't have some massive upsurge in demand for apartments during & after the pandemic, and rents still have climbed a lot.
Exactly. The City is already the Affordable Housing capital of the region. People move in/out of the city based on external factors like employment and internal factors like quality of life (perceived safety, schools, amenities), and usually its those factors specific to their City neighborhood, rather than "The City" writ large.Ebsy wrote: ↑Nov 22, 2025People don't move out of the City because rents are too high.
If only they could actually afford parts of the city with better safety and amenities. Maybe they'd stay and not leave.SB in BH wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2025Exactly. The City is already the Affordable Housing capital of the region. People move in/out of the city based on external factors like employment and internal factors like quality of life (perceived safety, schools, amenities), and usually its those factors specific to their City neighborhood, rather than "The City" writ large.Ebsy wrote: ↑Nov 22, 2025People don't move out of the City because rents are too high.
Yes, expensive neighborhoods are by definition not affordable to low-income households. That's part of their attraction to the people that live in those places. If you build a bunch of subsidized low-income housing in medium/high-income neighborhoods, let's say Lafayette Square, some percentage of the latter households will leave, undermining the safety and tax base that makes that neighborhood desirable in the first place and starting the downward spiral into blight. Then Lafayette Square becomes LaSalle Park. Yes, this is sad, and my heart bleeds for the less fortunate who can't afford to live in the most desirable City neighborhoods, but doubling down on subsidized low-income housing will only accelerate this dynamic, which is as old as recorded civilization, .Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2025If only they could actually afford parts of the city with better safety and amenities. Maybe they'd stay and not leave.SB in BH wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2025Exactly. The City is already the Affordable Housing capital of the region. People move in/out of the city based on external factors like employment and internal factors like quality of life (perceived safety, schools, amenities), and usually its those factors specific to their City neighborhood, rather than "The City" writ large.Ebsy wrote: ↑Nov 22, 2025People don't move out of the City because rents are too high.
The problem with claiming STL is the "affordable housing capital" is that the vast majority of our affordable housing are in neighborhoods that have lost half their population in the last 20-30 years. Neighborhoods people actually want to live in are not affordable unless they have units specifically designated for certain income levels.
You're right, segregation has been working really well for St. Louis. We should keep doing it.SB in BH wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2025Yes, expensive neighborhoods are by definition not affordable to low-income households. That's part of their attraction to the people that live in those places. If you build a bunch of subsidized low-income housing in medium/high-income neighborhoods, let's say Lafayette Square, some percentage of the latter households will leave, undermining the safety and tax base that makes that neighborhood desirable in the first place and starting the downward spiral into blight. Then Lafayette Square becomes LaSalle Park. Yes, this is sad, and my heart bleeds for the less fortunate who can't afford to live in the most desirable City neighborhoods, but doubling down on subsidized low-income housing will only accelerate this dynamic, which is as old as recorded civilization, .Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2025If only they could actually afford parts of the city with better safety and amenities. Maybe they'd stay and not leave.SB in BH wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2025Exactly. The City is already the Affordable Housing capital of the region. People move in/out of the city based on external factors like employment and internal factors like quality of life (perceived safety, schools, amenities), and usually its those factors specific to their City neighborhood, rather than "The City" writ large.
The problem with claiming STL is the "affordable housing capital" is that the vast majority of our affordable housing are in neighborhoods that have lost half their population in the last 20-30 years. Neighborhoods people actually want to live in are not affordable unless they have units specifically designated for certain income levels.
Rather than subsidizing more of something we already have (affordable housing), the City is better off focusing on attracting and retaining middle/high-income households, who can actually pay the taxes that sustain all City services, will participate in civic institutions, e.g., neighborhood associations, that promote neighborhood cohesiveness and safety, while obeying the law and expecting their neighbors to do likewise. If the City wants to stop the out-migration of lower-income households and eventually grow that population, it should focus on (a) concentrating public safety efforts in those places (b) identifying and dispossessing slumlords of their slums (including the corporate variety of slumlord), and (c) consolidating and improving neighborhood schools (and/or charter schools where the NH school is already closed/otherwise unsalvageable).
TL/DR: Focusing public policy efforts and resources on increasing affordable housing supply misses the mark by ignoring or undermining other important considerations like public safety and education and long-term neighborhood stability that are necessary to retain and grow the population across the economic spectrum.
I'm not sure where you get "segregation is good" from my comment. Life is not a morality play, you are not the star, and I am not an antagonist.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 25, 2025You're right, segregation has been working really well for St. Louis. We should keep doing it.SB in BH wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2025Yes, expensive neighborhoods are by definition not affordable to low-income households. That's part of their attraction to the people that live in those places. If you build a bunch of subsidized low-income housing in medium/high-income neighborhoods, let's say Lafayette Square, some percentage of the latter households will leave, undermining the safety and tax base that makes that neighborhood desirable in the first place and starting the downward spiral into blight. Then Lafayette Square becomes LaSalle Park. Yes, this is sad, and my heart bleeds for the less fortunate who can't afford to live in the most desirable City neighborhoods, but doubling down on subsidized low-income housing will only accelerate this dynamic, which is as old as recorded civilization, .Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2025
If only they could actually afford parts of the city with better safety and amenities. Maybe they'd stay and not leave.
The problem with claiming STL is the "affordable housing capital" is that the vast majority of our affordable housing are in neighborhoods that have lost half their population in the last 20-30 years. Neighborhoods people actually want to live in are not affordable unless they have units specifically designated for certain income levels.
Rather than subsidizing more of something we already have (affordable housing), the City is better off focusing on attracting and retaining middle/high-income households, who can actually pay the taxes that sustain all City services, will participate in civic institutions, e.g., neighborhood associations, that promote neighborhood cohesiveness and safety, while obeying the law and expecting their neighbors to do likewise. If the City wants to stop the out-migration of lower-income households and eventually grow that population, it should focus on (a) concentrating public safety efforts in those places (b) identifying and dispossessing slumlords of their slums (including the corporate variety of slumlord), and (c) consolidating and improving neighborhood schools (and/or charter schools where the NH school is already closed/otherwise unsalvageable).
TL/DR: Focusing public policy efforts and resources on increasing affordable housing supply misses the mark by ignoring or undermining other important considerations like public safety and education and long-term neighborhood stability that are necessary to retain and grow the population across the economic spectrum.
