If you’re a developer, it’s definitely bad. I’m not sure how much of the housing was supposed to be for mid to low income so I’m not sure if it’s bad for housing as well. The way the article is written, they call everyone nimbys that don’t want to build luxury homes that might sit empty so I’m thinking that the housing wasn’t for the mid to low income people. I could be corrected though.
Minneapolis is always interesting because it’s so close to St. Paul, how do they mingle these housing laws?
I’m not sure how much of the housing was supposed to be for mid to low income so I’m not sure if it’s bad for housing as well.
Even if building exclusively “luxury apartments”, it’s going to help the housing market by upping total supply and pushing older apartments to lower income tenants.
In theory sure. But there would need to be constant new construction for this to be the case. And that’s assuming no remodeling construction.
As we’ve seen, when investment blocks are allowed to own large segments of supply they’ll happily let units sit empty to artificially protect or inflate the price on the rest. Nimbys accomplish the same thing but voting down new development to protect the value of their homes.
Exactly the same way ghost hiring works to keep employees in line. And why the unemployment goal is 5% not 0%. It’s not about building self sufficient people, it’s about having just enough threat to be replaced to corral dignity, demands for decency and suppress wages. It’s “sustainable” exploitation.
The efforts of our labor, our vitality, which we substitute money for to make trade easier, is being systematically farmed away from us, with just little tweaks to increase efficiency in the operation
If nobody is moving into luxury apartments, why would they get built? It makes no economic sense for developers to build something they can’t sell/rent.
Multi-family housing does not equal mid income homes, just an FYI. You have to specifically mandate that. I’m not saying that they aren’t, but from what you said they aren’t necessarily.
Is this good or bad?
If you’re a developer, it’s definitely bad. I’m not sure how much of the housing was supposed to be for mid to low income so I’m not sure if it’s bad for housing as well. The way the article is written, they call everyone nimbys that don’t want to build luxury homes that might sit empty so I’m thinking that the housing wasn’t for the mid to low income people. I could be corrected though.
Minneapolis is always interesting because it’s so close to St. Paul, how do they mingle these housing laws?
Even if building exclusively “luxury apartments”, it’s going to help the housing market by upping total supply and pushing older apartments to lower income tenants.
In theory sure. But there would need to be constant new construction for this to be the case. And that’s assuming no remodeling construction.
As we’ve seen, when investment blocks are allowed to own large segments of supply they’ll happily let units sit empty to artificially protect or inflate the price on the rest. Nimbys accomplish the same thing but voting down new development to protect the value of their homes.
Exactly the same way ghost hiring works to keep employees in line. And why the unemployment goal is 5% not 0%. It’s not about building self sufficient people, it’s about having just enough threat to be replaced to corral dignity, demands for decency and suppress wages. It’s “sustainable” exploitation.
The efforts of our labor, our vitality, which we substitute money for to make trade easier, is being systematically farmed away from us, with just little tweaks to increase efficiency in the operation
Ah. Capitalism.
Trickle down housing doesn’t work. The end.
But does the supply matter if nobody is moving into the luxury apartments?
If nobody is moving into luxury apartments, why would they get built? It makes no economic sense for developers to build something they can’t sell/rent.
Except that luxury housing and Single Family houses is still being built, mid income housing is what’s on pause in Minneapolis
Multi-family housing does not equal mid income homes, just an FYI. You have to specifically mandate that. I’m not saying that they aren’t, but from what you said they aren’t necessarily.