Quote:
Originally Posted by bruchaus
I agree 100% with this but it isn't constraints that make the housing unaffordable, it is the developers desire to build whatever will bring them the most profit.
|
Those aren't two different explanations, they are two parts of one explanation. If they could, developers would build everything that would bring them a profit, including middle-income units. But if they can only build an artificially constrained number of units, they will only build the most profitable units, which is units for the highest-income segment.
What you really can't expect is to constrain the number of units developers can build, then have them build those units for a less profitable market segment than the most profitable market segment available.
By the way, it might be worth looking at some numbers. Comparing NYC 2011 3-year ACS to the 2000 Census long form, number of households in a given higher-income bracket:
$75K-99.9K went from 274K to 354K
$100K-149.9k went from 236K to 364K
$150K-199.9K went from 76K to 158K
$200K+ went from 104K to 206K
Even accounting for inflation, that is a huge growth in higher-income households, including an effective doubling from $150K+.
By the way, none of this is meant to suggest the housing situation is not dire in NYC for middle-income households. But it really isn't about developers suddenly deciding they don't like middle-income people. And it really is about the number of new units not being able to keep up with the explosive growth in higher-income households.
In short, if your playground is very desirable AND you only let in a few people at a time based on their ability to pay rent, then of course it will eventually become a playground for the wealthy. If you instead want less wealthy people to also use the playground, you will need to let in more people.