Loved the book. I view zoning as the method for homeowners to restrict their neighbors “for free.” They could buy in a HO association but they would have to pay a higher price and/or be subject to additional petty rules. I view HO associations as a keyhole answer to homeowners who want to “preserve” their property values. I would love to hear your thoughts on how to turn existing housing into HO property. For example: dear city, if you would deregulate lots of zoning, you could at the same time make it easier to form “time limited” associations between two or more wealthy property owners.
Have you considered trying to look at a very specific city and actually trying to motivate them to change housing regulations. Have you taken a look at the impact of non profits, government entities and universities on zoning. For instance is it actually necessary that all city planners have a college degree where they are inherently indoctrinated in the beliefs of high zoning regulation?
Though I agree with the overall claim that housing regulations in the US are favoring home owners at the expense of everyone else, the discussion in the book is very simplistic. The answer very likely isn't no regulation.
Here's a case where the "musical chair effect" wasn't seen and the market was pretty irrational:
Firms were well aware of rent controls and yet they built an oversupply of luxurious housing because they thought that would maximize their profits. So the price controls were known all along and should have been taken into account by “rational” firms.
A regulated market proves that an unregulated market would fail because if markets were rational they would instantaneously account for arbitrary regulatory decisions?
When rents are capped significantly below the rate of inflation, I don’t see how you can blame that on a market failure.
Your reference to theory seems to hold markets to an unrealistically high standard. Uncertainty and stickiness are factors in the real world, and the case of Turkey has way too many confounding factors to disprove Kaplan’s thesis.
Again, you don’t have a clue. Rent increases were not capped below the rate of inflation prior to 2022. So you can’t just say it all has to do with the 2022 measures.
These luxury condominiums were being built much much earlier than that. Developers wanted to strike it rich so they mostly built luxury housing, leading to oversupply of such housing, when the demand wasn’t there.
Loved the book. I view zoning as the method for homeowners to restrict their neighbors “for free.” They could buy in a HO association but they would have to pay a higher price and/or be subject to additional petty rules. I view HO associations as a keyhole answer to homeowners who want to “preserve” their property values. I would love to hear your thoughts on how to turn existing housing into HO property. For example: dear city, if you would deregulate lots of zoning, you could at the same time make it easier to form “time limited” associations between two or more wealthy property owners.
Have you considered trying to look at a very specific city and actually trying to motivate them to change housing regulations. Have you taken a look at the impact of non profits, government entities and universities on zoning. For instance is it actually necessary that all city planners have a college degree where they are inherently indoctrinated in the beliefs of high zoning regulation?
I pre-ordered it and read it on a flight. I like that you quoted some non-libertarians.
Though I agree with the overall claim that housing regulations in the US are favoring home owners at the expense of everyone else, the discussion in the book is very simplistic. The answer very likely isn't no regulation.
Here's a case where the "musical chair effect" wasn't seen and the market was pretty irrational:
https://turkeyrecap.substack.com/p/amid-soaring-housing-costs-istanbul?r=12v0t&utm_medium=email
This article mentions price controls at several points, so it certainly doesn’t prove that an unrestricted market leads to irrational outcomes.
Firms were well aware of rent controls and yet they built an oversupply of luxurious housing because they thought that would maximize their profits. So the price controls were known all along and should have been taken into account by “rational” firms.
A regulated market proves that an unregulated market would fail because if markets were rational they would instantaneously account for arbitrary regulatory decisions?
The latest round of rent controls was initiated in 2022 (https://bianet.org/haber/turkey-maintains-rent-increase-cap-housing-sales-decline-amid-exorbitant-prices-281526), and Turkey’s economic situation seems to be too complex to decisively make the point you made in your initial comment.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
There has always been rent control even prior to the 2022 measures.
" if markets were rational they would instantaneously account for arbitrary regulatory decisions"
Yes firms/supply side in theory would take into account all relevant information.
When rents are capped significantly below the rate of inflation, I don’t see how you can blame that on a market failure.
Your reference to theory seems to hold markets to an unrealistically high standard. Uncertainty and stickiness are factors in the real world, and the case of Turkey has way too many confounding factors to disprove Kaplan’s thesis.
Again, you don’t have a clue. Rent increases were not capped below the rate of inflation prior to 2022. So you can’t just say it all has to do with the 2022 measures.
These luxury condominiums were being built much much earlier than that. Developers wanted to strike it rich so they mostly built luxury housing, leading to oversupply of such housing, when the demand wasn’t there.