Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

stu54 t1_j4p12il wrote

Reply to comment by sjandixksn in New apartment buildings in low-income areas lead to lower rents in nearby housing units. This runs contrary to popular claims that new market-rate housing causes an uptick in rents and leads to the displacement of low-income people. by smurfyjenkins

You'd make more money, but your competitors would make less. That is what this research states, and why we won't see more multiplexes.

2

sjandixksn t1_j4q3zwi wrote

Not competitors but everyday homeowners. It would certainly increase the wealth of the 1% but you all would have more cheap housing.

Or play the game as is and normal people can buy homes and get into the middle the class that's basically the trade.

−1

stu54 t1_j4sbf78 wrote

Everyday homeowners don't build housing developments. You might say that they don't control the means of production. Landlords and developers create an environment of legal restriction to ensure that competition does not cut into the profits of their business model. Nimby homeowners just jump on the bandwagon.

2

sjandixksn t1_j4skibl wrote

I literally was saying the opposite.

Real estate professionals would love for there to be nk environmental restrictions. You can't put that on us. That's your average homeowner. Not your re investor or developer.

If you think it is you don't understand as much as you think you do.

1

stu54 t1_j4st38u wrote

What I meant by "environment of legal restriction" was strict building codes, stubborn approval processes, and zoning. I wasn't talking about environmentalism.

Environmental restrictions can fulfill that function of restricting supply in a way that benefits landlords, but the developers would be burdened with extra costs for surveys.

1