Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Tag property

Glaeser: Let Housing Prices Fall

Ed Glaeser gives three compelling reasons why the government should end their infatuation with high housing prices. (Nonetheless, some of the same politicians speak through the other side of their mouths about promoting housing affordability): Why We Should Let Housing Prices Keep Falling There is a superficial attractiveness to policies that seem to promise an end to falling housing prices, but there are three reasons why these proposals don’t make much sense to me. First, the government has no business trying to make housing less affordable to ordinary Americans. There is no reason to hope that middle-class Americans should pay more for any basic commodity, whether that commodity is coffee or oil or housing. Government should be fighting to reduce supply-side barriers and make housing cheaper, not trying to inflate prices artificially. Second, most of these proposals seem likely to be expensive failures. The government just doesn’t have the tools to rewrite the laws of supply and demand. If the cost of building a home in Las Vegas is $150,000, and there are no restrictions on building, then all the credit policies or bailouts in the world aren’t going to permanently keep prices above $150,000. Finally, these policies all have the common feature of getting the government further entrenched in the operation of the housing market, and this creates all sorts of long-term market problems. I would have thought that recent events at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, would have made Americans recognize the costs of having government-sponsored enterprises play mortgage lender to the nation. I would have hoped that the history of public housing would have made us wary about spending huge amounts of tax dollars to get into the business of public property management. The current crisis may imply a need for more federal regulation of […]

The Market, Zoning, and Freedom.

J. Brian Phillips wrote a great post at Houston Property Rights about liberal property rights in Houston, but what Brian had to say applies to every place. Here’s a snippet, but the entire post deserves a reading: when developers and builders see a need for greater density, they respond accordingly. And they can respond relatively quickly because they do not need to spend years seeking the approval of those who do not own the property. The market is a dynamic place. Each participant is motivated by his own self-interest, seeking to find the best use for his abilities and assets. When the market is unfettered, individuals can act as their judgment dictates, even when others think their ideas are folly. They need not convince the ignorant, the short-sighted, or bureaucrats. They need only convince those who choose to deal with them– their investors, their employees, and their customers. And each of these are motivated by their own self-interest. Those who seek to impede the market, which means impede the voluntary choices of individuals, are motivated by something entirely different. For all of their rhetoric about protecting the public or promoting the common good, their real goal is control. Their real goal is control over the men and women who build and produce. His writing concisely conveys many great points, and then he wraps it up with a rallying closing: no individual has a right to demand that others provide for his sustenance or happiness. He cannot compel others to provide for him, just as others cannot compel him to provide for them. He cannot force others to sacrifice for him, nor can others force him to sacrifice for them. That is not anarchy, that is the rule of objective law. That is freedom.

Landlord Finally Free to Live in His Own Home

After battling in court since 2003, this family is finally able to turn their 60 room apartment building into one gigantic home for themselves. Of course, the beneficiaries of the rent-controlled apartments don’t believe the owner’s family should have the right to live in their own building. New York Post – VILLAGE TENANTS ‘HOUSE BROKEN’ The Court of Appeals found that Alistair and Catherine Economakis can go ahead with eviction proceedings against their low-income tenants at 47 E. 3rd St., as long as they plan to use their apartments for themselves. “We’re all working people, your typical, moderate-income working people. For them to want to kick us out so they can have a luxury mansion – it’s ethically and morally unconscionable. I don’t know what other word to use,” said David Pultz, 56, who’s lived in the building for the past 30 years. Pultz said he pays $625 a month for his one-bedroom apartment, and is concerned that if he gets booted, he’ll have to leave the city. (that’s about 1/4 -1/3 the market rate for that neighborhood) “At a time of a really grave housing shortage, it’s a matter of serious concern that an owner can be permitted to obtain 15 apartments for his own use,” he said, adding that in the rest of the state, owners can’t claim more than two apartments for themselves. As I described in Rent Control Part 3, rent control creates this type of class tensions between the property owners and the “entitled” class tenants. It seems completely silly that the landlord has to go to such extremes to get out of the burdens of rent control, but can you blame him? Compared to buying a new home, it probably cost him next to nothing in lost revenue to evict the tenants. Here is […]

Trending now

A self-defeating argument
Texas MUD
gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation