Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

treestreestreesrva t1_jd88lab wrote

Reply to comment by Charlesinrichmond in RVA YIMBY kick-off meeting, Saturday at Ardent Brewing. "Yes in my backyard" pro-housing meetup. by DefaultSubsAreTerrib

Economics... Demand curves are not linear and the data also shows that

2

Charlesinrichmond t1_jd8d007 wrote

economics yes. Your interpretation is on the face of it contrary to economics.

You think a supply shortage lowers prices?

You think adding supply raises prices?

They are going to give you a Nobel prize or laugh at you. Hint - not the nobel

3

treestreestreesrva t1_jd8n13m wrote

Lol supply and demand are not linear curves. This is economics 101. Increasing supply in expensive areas will not lower prices. The demand is more inelastic here and RVA exhibits that to a T.

Please understand economics beyond the most simplistic supply and demand curve graph you once saw

5

ArgoCS t1_jd9thbs wrote

Even if it doesn’t lower the costs in less expensive areas having more options in “more desirable locations” will prevent the wealthy from displacing lower income people in the less wealthy ones. That seems like a win in and of itself.

I agree with you that we should have far more development in the underdeveloped areas as well however.

6

treestreestreesrva t1_jdae0oi wrote

Yes, but that has clearly not happened repeatedly in Richmond because of the lack of equity between areas (for many reasons.) The saying rising tides raise all ships isn't true here.

If we really want to talk about displacing low income individuals with housing we should be looking at VCU...

2

ArgoCS t1_jdaor26 wrote

Im confused as to what it is that you want? In general yimbys want strict zoning laws “softened” so that multifamily homes and other alternatives to single family homes can be built in a particular area.

People advocating for that in one area doesn’t preclude it from happening elsewhere. While I agree that the developers need to start paying attention to other parts of the city it’s not like this group is actively courting them and paying them off to only develop north of the river. If anything I would think this group would be happy to see that kind of investment in poorer areas as well.

2

treestreestreesrva t1_jdaqe2l wrote

No developers, no multi-family. Proper management of increased assessments and other taxes so that it isn't continually funneled toward a few areas. We should be pushing home ownership over more rental properties. Owning makes you care more about your house and your community.

1

airquotesNotAtWork t1_jd9pe8p wrote

You’re right the curves are not linear. That’s also why with vacancy rates at historical lows even minor increases in demand (due to natural population growth or transplants) causes rents to spike faster than population growth rates. Coming back down from that spike would require a lot more housing than a few projects here or there but widespread regional construction which even under some of the rosiest forecasts by people (like myself mind you) isn’t going to happen. This is in part because even in a more permissive regulatory environment there’s going to be a mismatch between buyers and sellers due in part to rising interest rates on the cost of moving to a new home. To say nothing of sellers choosing to sell to a developer rather than an individual. But that’s part of why we need more widespread legalization of housing forms in the roughly 70% (will have to calculate this again) of this city is explicitly zoned for single family homes. This permissibility also makes it easier to build more of the much needed affordable housing too, for what it’s worth.

All housing is good and we need more of it at every price level. That’s it. (I’ll get off my soapbox now)

2

treestreestreesrva t1_jd9s6sx wrote

Except the numbers show that rents haven't spiked as much near Richmond Highway and other lower income places. They're up, but not like $1600/month for a single loft. You can still rent a whole house for less than that in many areas. We also haven't seen the trailer parks resurface or expand like they did in the 70s.

−1

airquotesNotAtWork t1_jda0892 wrote

The increases in those neighborhoods is more meaningful to those who live there because they’re already low income and disproportionately more rent burdened. And because most of the area around there is zoned for single family homes(when not industrial) developing anything other than that (even just low rise apartments or other lower cost housing) is more expensive for the private sector because they would have to go through a long and expensive variance process, getting neighborhood feedback, etc.

part of the reason there hasn’t been expansion of trailer parks is because of our zoning as well.

Finally as someone else said, expanding supply of “market rate” housing in wealthier areas keeps rents from rising elsewhere even in low income communities https://research.upjohn.org/up_workingpapers/307/

2

treestreestreesrva t1_jda5vrd wrote

Cool and I'll counter with Richmond's low income housing projects of the past that have failed and all have begun to be replaced with houses not apartments because it has better outcomes.

1