Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"Affordable housing" (sub-market rate lotteries subsidized by increasing the cost of market rate housing) is IMO more of a NIMBY policy than a YIMBY one. The net effect is market rate housing gets more expensive, which hurts everyone except the lucky lottery winners.



Here's the thing, cities do not get cheaper when density increases. The reasons are complicated, but the end result is that not a single large city in Europe, US, or Japan decreased the housing costs by "just building more".

If you want to decrease costs, you have exactly two options:

1. Decrease the city population.

2. Build _more_ cities, or new suburbs.


> the end result is that not a single large city in Europe, US, or Japan decreased the housing costs by "just building more".

This is just factually inaccurate? I don't think we can meaningfully discuss anything if you're going to lie about major claims like this.


Care to provide a counterexample?

Outside of 2008, when all the prices dropped, and relatively recently (within ~40 years).


Austin is a very recent example.


See point 1. Next?


This. Demanding new developments all be affordable housing is a strategy NIMBYs use to prevent new construction, since most builders will just go elsewhere.

If a builder does try to comply with the demand, they come up with other reasons to block construction (doesn't match neighborhood's character, not enough parking, demand yet another environmental review, etc.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: