Chris Elmendorf Profile picture
Aug 15 11 tweets 5 min read Read on X
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. Image
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.

/2 aeaweb.org/articles?id=10…Image
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 Image
By contrast, people have pretty stable views about which actors are most responsible for high housing prices--namely, developers and landlords.

/4 Image
Image
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 Image
...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 Image
For a great writeup of the JEP symposium, check out @AA_Millsap's column in @Forbes,


/7forbes.com/sites/adammill…
And for more of my work w/ @ClaytonNall & @stan_okl on the mass public's housing-policy preferences and their connection to economic beliefs, check out these papers:
- papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
- nowpublishers.com/article/Detail…

/8 Image
Image
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
 

Keep Current with Chris Elmendorf

Chris Elmendorf Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @CSElmendorf

Nov 9
I stumbled across the work of Arthur E. Stamps III this morning and, wow, my eyes have been opened!

He's was (is?) an architect in San Francisco who wrote scores of academic papers on the mass public's aesthetic preferences & the failure of "design review" to serve them.

🧵/18 Image
Image
His studies show that San Francisco's Great Downzoning (1970s & early 1980s) was an answer to the public's genuine aesthetic dislike of residential dingbats and downtown "refrigerator towers."

/2 Image
Image
The city planning department had tried to address the public's dislike of midcentury "plain box" style by mandating bay windows. That yielded "Richmond Specials" -- a slight improvement, but still substantially disfavored by public relative to random sample of existing bldgs.

/3 Image
Image
Read 19 tweets
Nov 1
If builder's remedy comes to San Francisco, the city's anti-demolition / displacement rules go out the window.

For progressive supes & tenant orgs who believe what they say about those rules, enacting a compliant rezoning & constraint removal plan should be Priority #1.

🧵/9 Image
Explanation:

- s/t narrow exceptions, a city may not impose any local requirements on a builder's remedy project that EITHER (1) render project infeasible, OR (2) prevent a project that meets certain requirements from being constructed "as proposed by the applicant"

/2 Image
- any local rule or procedure that prevents the demolition of the existing structure on a lot almost surely will "render the project infeasible"

- the exceptions, enumerated in GC 65589.5(d)(1)-(4), do not include tenant or old-building protections

/3 Image
Read 11 tweets
Oct 30
The SF City Economist report on city's housing-element rezone is a nice bookend to the Court of Appeal's decision last month in New Commune v. Redondo Beach.

Put them together, and it's clear that pretty drastic reforms to CA's Housing Element Law are in order.

🧵/19
Crux of New Commune: If city does fact-intensive, site-specific analysis of "realistic" capacity for new housing, any frustrated YIMBY can dredge up an existing lease, go to court, and get the judge to put the city in Builder's Remedy penalty box.

/2


'
Import of S.F. City Economist report (together w/ HCD's correspondence w/ city thus far): If city instead uses p(dev) method to gauge its plan's capacity, city will be at mercy of the inexpert model gods at HCD.

Who knows what model they'll bless?

/3
Read 20 tweets
Oct 30
California, home of the world's 4th largest economy & several of its top econ departments, has spent 50 years "planning for housing need" w/o availing itself of economic expertise.

The game is up, courtesy of the S.F. city economist. My op-ed in today's @sfchronicle ⤵️.

🧵/22 Image
What happened?

Every 8 years, CA cities must adopt a plan, called a "housing element," that shows how they'll accommodate their fair share of regionally needed housing.

/2
In June 2020, after some back-and-forth w/ regional "council of governments" (but no input from economists) @California_HCD announced the current target for the Bay Area.

/3

abag.ca.gov/sites/default/…
Read 24 tweets
Oct 21
New CEQA opinion nixing (again!) the voters' repeal of a 30' height limit in San Diego is a near-perfect vehicle for CA Supreme Court to jettison the worst of "Old CEQA."

Very glad that @MayorToddGloria is determined to appeal it.

🧵 Image
Image
Image
Background:

- In 1972, the voters capped heights at 30' "to prevent[] high-rise buildings from obstructing 'needed open breezes, sky & sunshine,'" and to "protect[] against unwanted population density with its problems of ... lack of parking space, increased crime[, etc.]"

/2 Image
- the 1972 San Diego ballot measure defined "coastal zone" to include not only environmentally sensitive area, but also a big swath of industrially zoned land b/t the freeways

/3 Image
Image
Read 33 tweets
Oct 16
I read the @CAForever Specific Plan. It's exciting!

Here's a 🧵w/ some highlights & questions.

1/23 Image
First off: the grid & internal transit plan is fantastic.

There's a bike/ped/greenway grid; a slow-car/bike/ped grid; and transit/faster-car grid.

What other city has a citywide grid of bus rapid transit, with BRT lines every 1/2 mile both north-south & east-west?

/2 Image
Image
Image
Parking:

- Street and public-garage parking will be variable-rate metered 24/7 from the get-go.
- Residents may rent a monthly spot in a public garage.
- No parking minimums for residential projects.

/3 Image
Image
Read 25 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(