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
I wrote a long 🧵 yesterday on my puzzlement about the chatter that @GavinNewsom or his advisors might think it'd be politically prudent to veto SB 79.
Today I'll explain why I don't think he'll cave.
tl,dr: he's a bold idealist and fundamentally good on housing!
1/🧵
Context: I don't know Newsom or any of his top advisors personally. (I met him once at a law-school commencement ceremony, that's all.)
But I've watched him for a long time, first as my mayor in San Francisco, then as Lt. Governor and Governor.
/2
His defining quality as a politician is a willingness, even an eagerness, to make big, idealistic bets on the future.
He's a first mover, always looking for the new thing.
/3
New Searchlight poll validates essentially all of the takeaways from my work w/ @ClaytonNall & @stan_okl on housing "supply skepticism" in the mass public.
(They got substantively similar results using different questions on a different sample.)
Point #1: Most people want lower housing prices--including most homeowners!
/2
Point #2: Most people don't believe that a positive housing supply shock would result in lower prices. (This implied by "personal finances" item on Searchlight poll, as well as "home values.")
2) Review two kinds of local ordinances, which I'll call "SB 79 conforming ordinances" and "SB 79 alternative plans"
/2
As my previous 🧵s explained, the compromises in SB 79 open the door to local mischief, including (among other things) demolition controls that could negate SB 79, and reallocation of SB 79 capacity to sites that are infeasible to develop.
Issue #4: How will project entitlement work if city has passed an SB 79 implementing ordinance that may be unlawful, i.e., not "substantially compliant" w/ SB 79?
Can developer proceed under SB 79 directly, at least if HCD hasn't approved the implementing ordinance?
/3
Context: An SB 79 ordinance may withdraw certain sites (those w/ historical resources, or exposed to sea level rise or wildlife risk), & reallocate heights/densities among others.
Like a housing element, such ordinances face HCD review for "substantial compliance."
/4
This is a super important addition to my thread. ⤵️
Applying logic of Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, it's very likely that SB 79 projects will qualify for the AB 130 CEQA exemption, whether or not city has enacted a local implementation ordinance.
Yes, a NIMBY plaintiff could say, "Wolmer is different b/c in that case, the city had incorporated state density bonus law into its local zoning code, making the waived development restrictions 'inapplicable' within meaning of the municipal code."
/2
But even though the court italicized this point, it ultimately did not rely on it.
The gist of the opinion is that the word "applicable" within the meaning of the Class 32 infill exemption should be construed to give effect to the core policies of both SDBL and CEQA.