Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
If you increase the supply of something, you reduce its price. That's just how it work.
Also, when people move into new housing, even if it's expensive, wherever they were living before becomes available. The article linked above discusses, including citations to research on the topic.
|
The more I have this debate the more I realize how hard it is to convince somebody with facts when they've already made up their mind based on feelings. Like, I literally just posted the article which references studies in Auckland and Minneapolis. It literally talks about cases like Elbow Park, etc in there, that yes, some high priced homes will be made, but that increased supply still helps.
Quote:
One argument is that only by building affordable housing can you increase affordability. Market-rate dwellings will simply go to people on higher incomes, leaving lower earners high and dry.
But recent studies from the US, Sweden and Finland all demonstrate that although most people who move directly into new unsubsidised housing may come from the top half of earners, the chain of moves triggered by their purchase frees up housing in the same cities for people on lower incomes.
|
Want to go dispute that? Fine, read the multiple papers that are cited and tell me where they got it wrong but this "what about Elbow Park / Houston / wherever" is tiring.
People that study planning and urban studies have across the board said policies like this are beneficial. Are they the silver bullet, no, they're part of a solution. (just like this strategy). Want to dispute that it doesn't work? Fine, but bring some stronger arguments.