Very pleased that my paper w/ @ClaytonNall & @stan_okl, "The Folk Economics of Housing," has been published in the excellent new JEP symposium on housing markets. ⤵️
🧵/10.
link:
The tl,dr is that housing supply skepticism--which we operationalize as the belief that a large, positive, exogenous regional supply shock would not reduce home prices / rents locally--is pervasive, distinctive to housing, but weakly held.
People give more internally inconsistent answers, within and across surveys, to questions about the price effects of housing supply shocks than to questions about other economic shocks / beliefs.
/3
By contrast, people have pretty stable views about which actors are most responsible for high housing prices--namely, developers and landlords.
/4
So, while nearly all renters and even a majority of homeowners say they'd prefer lower housing prices in their city, the mass public's lack of conviction that more supply would help--and their eagerness to blame developers & landlords--means...
/5
...that there's less of a mass constituency for supply-expanding policies than for policies like rent control and inclusionary zoning that stick it to landlords and developers.
/6
For a great writeup of the JEP symposium, check out @AA_Millsap's column in @Forbes,
For folks who want to dig deeper, our JEP paper comes w/ a 100-page online appendix (aeaweb.org/content/file?i…) & a replication package w/ codebook (openicpsr.org/openicpsr/proj…) for four surveys in which we investigated loads of potential explanations for housing supply skepticism.
/9
Big thanks to @TimothyTTaylor, @ProfJAParker & @heidilwilliams_ for inviting our participation in JEP's housing-markets symposium and for their terrific feedback on the paper!
/end
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
An architect who does multifamily housing throughout CA told me recently,
"The secret's not out, but San Francisco, erstwhile worst offender, has become one of the easiest places to get projects entitled & permitted in CA."
I asked what changed. He said, "The mayor."
1/5
"Just about everyone in every city dept now understands its their job to get permits issued, quickly. Mangers got their marching orders from @DanielLurie and workflows have gotten much better."
(I'm paraphrasing his remarks.)
/2
S.F. still has all sorts of lousy laws & policies that thwart housing production -- high transfer taxes, high IZ, expensive bespoke code requirements, de facto prohibitions on redevelopment of any building w/ rent-controlled units -- but mgmt apparently is much improved.
/3
New decision from CA Court of Appeal on the fee-shifting provisions of AB 1633 has big implications for NIMBYs' incentive to challenge housing approvals under CEQA & beyond.
Context: As part of the 1970s revolution in admin law, states & the federal gov't actively encouraged self-appointed "private attorneys general" to sue, via attorneys' fee bounties.
/2
Asymmetric fee-shifting provisions were written into scores of public laws: If a plaintiff challenging a gov't decision wins, the gov't has to pay for the plaintiff's attorney; if the plaintiff loses, they don't have to pay for the gov's attorney.
"For a typical mid-rise apartment in San José, construction costs can exceed $700k–$900k per unit."
I 💯% agree w/ @MattMahanSJ that reducing construction costs should be a top priority for 2026 -- and that this is mainly a job for the state legislature.
Reason #1. CA's fiscal constitution + local political incentives push local govs to extract "value" from development w/ impact fees, IZ & transfer taxes.
This drives up the cost of building enormously.
/2
The state leg should preempt most such fees, IZ, & taxes, ***and create a substitute source of local revenue.***
My preferred alternative: a state parcel tax assessed on the "net potential square feet" or "net potential units" created by upzoning pursuant to state law.
/3
Could L.A. really land in the Builder's Remedy penalty box, just for f'ing around with a single low-income housing project which a nonprofit developer wants to build on city-owned land?
In October, @California_HCD sent L.A. a sharply worded letter, warning that the city's housing element had relied on the Venice Dell project both as a "pipeline project" and as part of the city's strategy to "affirmatively further fair housing."
/2 hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/…
The HCD letter also flagged five "policies" and two "programs" in L.A.'s housing element that per HCD should "facilitate the project."
The city's course of action has been "inconsistent with these policies."
Cooking in San Diego: A turquoise, 23-story test of the Permit Streamlining Act's new-and-improved "deemed approved" proviso.
This could turn into a big constitutional battle.
🧵/22
Enacted in 1977, the PSA put time limits on CEQA and other agency reviews of development proposals.
If an agency violated the time limits, the project was to be "deemed approved" by operation of law. Wow!
It proved wholly ineffectual.
/2
As @TDuncheon & I explained, courts first decided that the Leg couldn't possibly have meant for a project to be approved before enviro review was complete.
- San Francisco almost certainly must approve this 25-story project on a site zoned for 4 stories
- The city's new ordinance deregulating density in "well-resourced areas" will operate as de-facto downzoning of such sites
🧵
This project's site is zoned for retail use and is currently occupied by the Marina Safeway.
The zoning classification also allows residential use at density of 1 unit per 600 sqft of lot area or density of nearest residential district, whichever is greater.
/2
The nearest residential district, RM-4, allows density of 1 unit per 200 sqft of lot area.
That translates into 567 units on site.
Developer proposes to build 790 units, which requires a 39% density bonus (790/567 = 1.39).