This article weak-mans the anti-gentrification position in the “What if construction raises rents” section. I get why you’d make fun of the argument because in the big picture it really is just false, and because a lot of anti-gentrification arguments are poorly argued.
Here’s what I think the stronger anti-gentrification/”construction will raise the rent” argument looks like:
The fundamental problem is when an increase in rents or a decrease in neighborhood quality displaces current renters. They lose their investment in intangible assets like relationships, jobs near home, taking care of their rented yard and house, their kids’ school situation, and so on. This happens both when a neighborhood gets more expensive, and when it becomes a worse place to live. People choose where to live based on an acceptable quality at an affordable price, and if either of these variables changes much for the worse, the neighborhood might not work for them anymore. What renters want for their own neighborhood is stability, even though they’d like to see neighborhoods becoming cheaper-yet-nicer elsewhere.
Relaxed zoning and new construction may lower rents globally and long-term, but raises rents locally and short-term as rents had been set according to the previous restrictive zoning regime and people moved in accordingly. Entering a phase of rapid construction means displacing a lot of renters, making their lives worse at least in the short run since they suffer displacement without reaping any benefit from increase in property values.
In other words, renters can be NIMBYs too. Construction displaces renters without delivering them any substantial short-term benefits.
This argument might be wrong—maybe relaxed zoning and increased construction lowers rents locally, not just globally. Maybe it drives down rents quickly enough that it offers some compensation to renters who get displaced. Maybe the benefits of stability are exaggerated, it could be that people have a lot of inertia and they’d benefit from being forced to move more often because it would make them keep asking the question “is this neighborhood where I want to live?” I just would like to see a debate centered around the strongest arguments.
This article weak-mans the anti-gentrification position in the “What if construction raises rents” section. I get why you’d make fun of the argument because in the big picture it really is just false, and because a lot of anti-gentrification arguments are poorly argued.
Here’s what I think the stronger anti-gentrification/”construction will raise the rent” argument looks like:
The fundamental problem is when an increase in rents or a decrease in neighborhood quality displaces current renters. They lose their investment in intangible assets like relationships, jobs near home, taking care of their rented yard and house, their kids’ school situation, and so on. This happens both when a neighborhood gets more expensive, and when it becomes a worse place to live. People choose where to live based on an acceptable quality at an affordable price, and if either of these variables changes much for the worse, the neighborhood might not work for them anymore. What renters want for their own neighborhood is stability, even though they’d like to see neighborhoods becoming cheaper-yet-nicer elsewhere.
Relaxed zoning and new construction may lower rents globally and long-term, but raises rents locally and short-term as rents had been set according to the previous restrictive zoning regime and people moved in accordingly. Entering a phase of rapid construction means displacing a lot of renters, making their lives worse at least in the short run since they suffer displacement without reaping any benefit from increase in property values.
In other words, renters can be NIMBYs too. Construction displaces renters without delivering them any substantial short-term benefits.
This argument might be wrong—maybe relaxed zoning and increased construction lowers rents locally, not just globally. Maybe it drives down rents quickly enough that it offers some compensation to renters who get displaced. Maybe the benefits of stability are exaggerated, it could be that people have a lot of inertia and they’d benefit from being forced to move more often because it would make them keep asking the question “is this neighborhood where I want to live?” I just would like to see a debate centered around the strongest arguments.