Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Liberalizing Cities
From The Ground Up
"These two homes straddle a 2010 zoning boundary change. The result: The house in duplex zoning converted into two homes, and the other converted into a McMansion that cost 80% more." - Arthur Gailes
Are there diverse places in the U.S. where racial differences among residents are small enough to be undetectable to a typical resident? Places where Roger Starr's ideal of "integration without tears" might be a reality, where people of different races socialize as equals, share culture and priorities, and work in the same range of occupations?
A recent paper by UCLA researchers discusses 2019-20 literature on the relationship between new construction and rents. The article discusses five papers; four of them found that new housing consistently lowers rents in nearby buildings. For example, Kate Pennington wrote a paper on the relationship between new construction and housing costs in San Francisco. What is unique about this paper is that while other papers focus on a broad sample of new construction, Pennington focuses on one subset of the market: “new construction caused by serious building fires.” Why? Because most new construction is in high-demand areas. Any study that focuses on such construction will be more likely to conclude that the new construction is related to high rents, when in fact the real cause of increased rents is increased demand for certain neighborhoods. Pennington found that rents actually decreased within 500 meters of new buildings- by 2.3 percent, compared to similar blocks without new buildings. Pennington also found 17.1 percent less displacement (which she defines as moves to poorer zipcodes) near the new buildings, and found that landlords were less likely to evict rent-controlled tenants. One paper was a partial exception to the pro-supply trend of recent scholarship: a paper by Anthony Damiano and Chris Frenier found that new buildings in Minneapolis lowered rents for most nearby buildings, but increased rents for the cheapest buildings. But the UCLA researches point out that “Damiano and Frenier do not adjust the rents in their study for inflation, which is an unusual decision, and one that makes the rent increases they report look much larger than they actually were.” Adjusted for inflation, rents near new buildings declined by 7 percent overall, and increased by only 0.2 percent for the cheapest buildings. One point that the UCLA researches do not mention: although the […]
Some commentators are slightly agog over an academic paper by Andres Rodrieguz-Pose and Michael Storper; Richard Florida writes that they shows that ” the effect of [housing] supply has been blown far out of proportion. ” Most of this paper isn’t really about the effect of housing supply on prices at all. Instead, the first 80 percent of the paper seems to argue that it makes no sense for low-skilled domestic workers to live in cities, because “Several decades ago mid-skilled work was clustered in big cities, while low-skilled work was most prevalent in the countryside. No longer; the mid-skilled jobs that remain are more likely to be found in rural areas than in urban ones.” (p. 20). The authors’ attack on upzoning is in the last few pages, and is based on broad, sweeping generalizations rather than actual data. First, they say that upzoning “would very likely involve replacing older and lower-quality housing stock in areas highly favoured by the market, effectively decreasing housing supply for lower income households in desirable areas.” (p. 30). They cite no source or data for this assertion- just pure conjecture. What’s wrong with their claim? First, such gentrification happens without upzoning; for example, in Chicago’s Lincoln Park, gentrification occurred through renovation of existing structures, rather than new, taller buildings- and of course places where new construction is politically difficult (such as San Francisco and Manhattan) are notorious for gentrification. Second, it assumes that new housing inevitably replaces older housing, rather than, say, vacant lots- an obvious overgeneralization.. Second, they rely on the “but we’re already building new housing!” argument. They cite a paywalled newpaper article to support this statement: “rents are now declining for the highest earners while continuing to increase for the poorest in San Francisco, Atlanta, Nashville, Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver, Pittsburgh, […]
I found an interesting new website: EvictionLab. This website contains eviction data by city for a large number of American communities. One might think that gentrifying cities and/or high cost cities have more evictions. But interestingly, low-cost, poor cities tend to have more evictions. Nine of the ten cities with the highest eviction rates are in low-cost southern states; the tenth is Warren, Michigan. Even within states, low-cost cities tend to have higher eviction rates than more expensive, gentrifying cities. For example, Fresno has the highest eviction rate of any major city in California- 2.8 (that is, 2.8 evictions for every 100 renter households) while Los Angeles and San Francisco are below 0.5. Seattle has a lower eviction rate (0.3) than Washington’s smaller cities, Austin has a lower eviction rate than Dallas or Houston (0.98 percent as opposed to over 1.5 percent for Houston and Dallas). Miami’s 2.01 percent eviction rate, although high by national standards, is lower than that of other Florida cities such as Jacksonville (5.34) and Tampa (3). New Orleans (1.6) has a lower eviction rate than Baton Rouge and Shreveport (both of which clock in at over 4 percent). New York City is a partial exception- its 1.61 rate is higher than that of Syracuse and Yonkers; on the other hand no statistics are available for the state’s two biggest cheaper cities, Buffalo and Rochester. So what does it all mean? It seems clear that there is not a strong correlation between gentrification and eviction, or for that matter between higher-than-average housing costs and eviction. Beyond that, I’m not sure what conclusions to draw.
Some progressives believe that gentrification causes displacement of poor people, that new market-rate housing causes such gentrification, and thus that new housing must be kept out of low-income neighborhoods. The first of these claims is based on the assumption that absent gentrification, low-income neighborhoods would be stable places. But this is not the case. Often, a city’s poorest neighborhoods are those losing population most rapidly. In St. Louis, for example, the city’s low-income, crime-ridden northside wards are rapidly losing people: the city’s 3rd Ward lost 28 percent of its population between 2000 and 2010 alone, and other northside neighborhoods also lost over 10 (and in a few cases, over 20) percent of their population in the 2000s. The city’s racially integrated, somewhat poor Near South Side also lost over 10 percent of its population in the 2000s. By contrast, the city’s gentrifying downtown and midtown actually gained population, while the white working/middle class Far South Side were somewhere in between. Similarly, in Atlanta, the affluent northside and racially integrated downtown and midtown gained population in the 2000s, while much of the city’s all-black south side and far northwest side are losing population. These declining neighborhoods tend to be poor: for example, zip code 30315 (Lakewood Heights on the southside) has a 38 percent poverty rate and lost 16 percent of its population in the 2000s. Zip code 30314 (Vine City and other northwest neighborhoods) has a poverty rate of 34 percent, and lost about 18 percent of its population. And in Chicago, the toughest neighborhoods also export people. The city’s downtown gained over 40,000 people since 2010, while the city’s traditionally impoverished Far South Side lost nearly 50,000. In fact, nearly every major part of the city outside the Far South Side either gained population or lost no more than […]
I recently read a highly publicized pro-NIMBY book, Vanishing New York. The author, who goes by the pen name “Jeremiah Moss” tells a simple story: throughout New York, gentrification and chain stores are on the march, making the city rich and boring. The story has an element of truth: obviously, there are some places that have gentrified, and there are some places (mostly notably Times Square) that have lots and lots of banks and chain stores. But on balance, the book’s relationship with factual reality is a bit uneven. Much of the book complains about the evils of gentrification. But in fact, even in Manhattan the poverty rate is 17.9 percent, about three times that of most New York suburbs. Moss also claims that the city is getting whiter, but even Manhattan is 40 percent black and Hispanic, and New York City as a whole is 54 percent black and Hispanic. By contrast, in 1980 the city was only 45 percent black/Hispanic, and in 1940 it was over 90 percent white. Moss seems to think that the city is being taken over by chain stores. The last time I walked through the East Village (one of the neighborhoods he writes about) I found about one or two such stores per block, or about 5 or 10 percent of all storefronts. My guess is that Moss thinks about chain stores the way many racists think about racial minorities: because they assume one is too many, 5 percent seems to them like a takeover. Moss is all for immigration from foreign nations, but constantly complains about newcomers, especially parents; he uses the word “stroller” like anti-Semites use the term “international bankers”- as a code-word for a dreaded enemy. He has a problem with college students too (complaining about “NYU’s presence… [having] spread […]
Land-use scholars have offered a variety of policy proposals that attempt to identify institutional reforms to reduce the incentive for homeowner NIMBYs to protest development. For example, in a 2013 paper law professor David Schleicher proposed a policy called Tax Increment Local Transfers (TILTs). When a municipality permits a new development, the new construction will increase its tax base by an amount called the tax increment. Schleicher suggests that the tax increment could be transferred to NIMBY homeowners to buy their support for new housing. But homeowners aren’t the only vocal opponents to new housing. Anti-displacement activists are also prominent opponents to new construction. What if we also dedicated TILT revenues to anti-displacement causes? Making new housing construction feasible in the cities with the best job opportunities is of serious importance for economic opportunity and mobility. Research by Peter Ganong and Daniel Shoag (covered here by Sandy and me and here by Matt Yglesias) demonstrates that restricted housing supply in the U.S.’s most productive cities has resulted in less income mobility over the past 40 years. Ganong and Shoag explain that during the high-mobility period of 1940 to 1960, people moved from low-income to high-income states. In the process, the labor forces in high-income states grew, putting downward pressure on their wages relative to low-income states. As income increased across all states during this time period, it grew fastest in the lowest-income states. Ganong and Shoag show that the negative relationship between income growth rates and average income across states has broken down since 1980 with the rise of land-use regulations that have severely limited housing supply growth in the country’s most productive cities. Specifically, they find that if income convergence had continued at its 1940-1960 rate through 2010, hourly wage inequality would be eight percent lower today. While homevoters are responsible for the lion’s […]
Market Urbanism may soon have a hearing in the Supreme Court. Two of my colleagues at the Mercatus Center, Sandy Ikeda, half a dozen other professors, and I argue that the Court should take up the case 616 Croft Ave., LLC, v. City of West Hollywood. The case is an opportunity for the Court to determine whether inclusionary zoning violates its standards for legal exactions from developers. Inclusionary zoning requires developers to rent or sell some units in new projects at below-market prices. The Court has established that local governments can only require benefits from developers when these benefits offset a public nuisance from the project. Inclusionary zoning fails this test. The facts of the case could have played out in many American cities. Real estate developers Shelah and Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer purchased two single family homes that they replaced with 11 condo units. West Hollywood’s inclusionary zoning rule required them to either make 20 percent of the units in their new project available at below-market prices or to contribute $540,000 to the city’s affordable housing fund. The Pacific Legal Foundation is representing the Lehrer-Graiwers suit. They have petitioned the Supreme Court to review earlier decisions from California courts that upheld West Hollywood’s policy. West Hollywood’s inclusionary zoning policy states that its purpose is to “off-set development impacts” that new housing construction causes. This justification is based on the false assumption that new housing development raises housing prices by replacing older, cheaper housing with newer, more expensive housing. This fallacy may seem reasonable at first glance. New construction is often more expensive than the older homes it replaces. But as these once-new houses age, they become affordable to lower-income residents. New construction is the only way to increase housing supply, and new units have the potential to become market-rate affordable housing over time. Housing economists call this process “filtering.” One estimate puts the […]
A blog post in Pacific Standard seeks to defend rent control- an idea that, as the author admits, is generally detested by economists. The author writes that “rent regulations give tenants a greater stake in their community and incentivize them to put time, energy, and even money into their homes.” But that’s not necessarily a good thing- in a heavily regulated market, a “stake in the community” means that tenants, like homeowners, have an incentive to engage in NIMBYism. So in a prosperous area rent control hits housing supply with a double whammy- more recruits for the NIMBY army AND less incentive for landlords to invest in housing. He also endorses the “Unlimited Demand” theory, acknowledging the argument that building more market rate housing creates more affordable housing eventually, but responds: “not in tight markets like Silicon Valley and New York City. ” This claim is of course a self-fulfilling prophecy: people use it to justify opposing new housing, which in turn ensures that supply can never meet demand. (I critique the argument in more detail here). However, the article does contain one non-silly argument: that rent-controlled cities do occasionally experience building booms (most notably New York in the 1950s). Rent control is a factor relating to housing supply, but not the only one. So here’s my modest proposal for pro-regulation politicians: a city can adopt rent control to protect existing tenants, as long as they deregulate in other ways in order to promote new construction. So for example, a state law could provide that municipalities could adopt rent control under one condition: no more exclusion of new housing. So if San Mateo County wants to adopt rent control, they can do it as long as all new housing is exempt from all of the city’s use and density restrictions. The […]
