Thread by @jenny_schuetz

Nice explainer by @rjacobus on why voters in expensive places don't believe more housing will reduce rents. Namely, hsg markets are segmented, so new high-end apts won't (quickly) reduce low-end rents. I mostly agree, w/ some friendly amendments.
shelterforce.org/2019/02/19/why…

Yes, hsg mkts are segmented by price tier. But differences btwn luxury, mid-priced, & "affordable" hsg are only partly about structure age/quality. It's also about location. We can build new apts w/ fancy kitchens anywhere. But we can't easily recreate desirable nhood amenities.

Location is the ultimate scare resource. For 30 yrs, most US cities have underbuilt hsg in their most desirable nhoods - b/c residents of those nhoods use regulations & political power to oppose new hsg. That's pushed new hsg ("luxury" structures) into mid- & low-income nhoods.

The only way to stop driving up rents in mid- & low-income nhoods is to build more hsg *in high-income nhoods.* So Rick (and voters) are right, it's not just about more supply. It's about *where* we build. But we can't build hsg in "luxury" nhoods unless we reform regulations.

Rick's right, urban economists haven't convinced voters that more supply is the answer. We shd be honest about limits of filtering (like how long it takes). But the politics also reflect high-income voters who fight new hsg in their backyards then complain about affordability.