Super insightful breakdown, Brian! Physical infrastructure always moves at the speed of local zoning and regulatory friction, which makes reform so painfully slow. The contrast between how quickly software iterates versus how stubborn physical reality remains is always fascinating. Great analysis as always!
Fifty nine sections, yet perhaps four with meaningful supply effects. That ratio is the story. Housing legislation accumulates studies, grants and procedural repairs because outputs are easier to legislate than occupied homes. The honest audit is simple: which section changes the number, location or completion date of actual units?
Sections 502 and 601 are both demand subsidies, and the latter is directly relevant to new housing, not just existing housing, so I would expect 601 to do more than 502 to move supply in the sense of increasing quantity supplied, while neither 502 or 601 will shift the housing supply curve to the right. In any case, I recommend distinguishing between these two senses of "increase housing supply" more explicitly and more often.
Come to Buena Park, Orange County, CA if you want to see how a city allows/encourages unlimited housing. It's going to cause a major decline in single housing prices, in my opinion. Traffic everywhere and the police have stopped issuing tickets.
Inasmuch as there isn't any apparent funding mechanism(s) for any of these titles in the legislation, I wonder if any of it will matter at all? Do I have that right? Is there a funding mechanism in there anywhere, or did I miss it?
My reality based self sez it won't move the needle even a millimeter.
The more the government tries to help, the harder it gets to do the thing.
Government's involved in housing legislation.
A White Man who works his ass off won't be able to get help, while moochers will.
I think the government should stay out of housing, education, and medicine. They aren't very good at any of them.
Housing supply is a constraints problem. Cross-asset, what usually matters first is which bottlenecks still decide who gets to build at scale.
Super insightful breakdown, Brian! Physical infrastructure always moves at the speed of local zoning and regulatory friction, which makes reform so painfully slow. The contrast between how quickly software iterates versus how stubborn physical reality remains is always fascinating. Great analysis as always!
Fifty nine sections, yet perhaps four with meaningful supply effects. That ratio is the story. Housing legislation accumulates studies, grants and procedural repairs because outputs are easier to legislate than occupied homes. The honest audit is simple: which section changes the number, location or completion date of actual units?
Housing supply is a real-economy bottleneck. Policy paths matter most when they change the cost of capital and the pace of builds.
Sections 502 and 601 are both demand subsidies, and the latter is directly relevant to new housing, not just existing housing, so I would expect 601 to do more than 502 to move supply in the sense of increasing quantity supplied, while neither 502 or 601 will shift the housing supply curve to the right. In any case, I recommend distinguishing between these two senses of "increase housing supply" more explicitly and more often.
Come to Buena Park, Orange County, CA if you want to see how a city allows/encourages unlimited housing. It's going to cause a major decline in single housing prices, in my opinion. Traffic everywhere and the police have stopped issuing tickets.
Inasmuch as there isn't any apparent funding mechanism(s) for any of these titles in the legislation, I wonder if any of it will matter at all? Do I have that right? Is there a funding mechanism in there anywhere, or did I miss it?
My reality based self sez it won't move the needle even a millimeter.