Hacker News Reader

Comment by thfuran | Hacker News Reader

>The potential profitability of converting a tower is something only the buyer should be concerned with, not the government.

I have no idea how you could possibly hold such a position, so I'm not really sure what to say. Do you think incentives don't matter? Do you think the government doesn't already heavily involve itself in real estate pricing beyond just zoning via numerous regulatory means and subsidies? Do you think that what gets built in a jurisdiction just isn't its government's concern?

View on HN

You're a bit confused about how this works. If the gov changes an area with office buildings to mixed zoning then some will be converted and some wont because of cost. Market forces can decide what's cost effective in that case. It does not matter that some will not be cost effective to convert. There is also no damage done if magically none of them get converted...

>If the gov changes an area with office buildings to mixed zoning then some will be converted and some wont because of cost.

Unless, because of the costs, none of them are. And while that does no harm, if the purpose of changing the zoning was to get more housing, then it also does no good. The profitability of the conversion absolutely should be a consideration, because a tax abatement or something could effect change where simply altering zoning might not.

You're arguing the wrong direction, I think.

If the gov does not change zoning restrictions to something less restrictive, then the work will, by law, not be possible.

If they do, then it's POSSIBLE, but it's not up to gov't to MANDATE it.

Arguing that they shouldn't "loosen" the restrictions because the market _MIGHT_ determine it's still not worthwhile seems odd to me. Perhaps this is from a cultural bias.

The point of the article wasn't to make more housing required, it was to make it possible to do so. Perhaps in other countries/cultures/governments the incentives are different (market vs. gov), but this article is not that.

>but it's not up to gov't to MANDATE it.

>Arguing that they shouldn't "loosen" the restrictions because the market _MIGHT_ determine it's still not worthwhile

Neither of those arguments are being made. The argument being made is that if the government intends to effect change in the housing market, it must concern itself with the economics, because those economics are largely determined by government policy and determine whether new housing is actually likely to get built.

Once upon a time in new york, people built bleechers on their roofs to watch baseball games. Neighbors would potluck or sell home cooked food. There was enough housing for everyone, because they had very loose regulations.

If you really want to turn this into a multiday thread, then we can start with the different theorems of value; you will come to see how even theory proves it is a terrible idea to have government trying to manage for profit endeavors. But, if you just want the magic fix to the housing shortage, you should just run with deregulation.

I am equally clueless as to how you came up with this line of questions. Of course incentives matter, when did I imply they didnt? Of course the government is involved, which is why I said the reasons for not converting a building (the buyer) arent the same reasons why you wouldnt rezone (government), something there not clear?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com