T. Otal Filthman • Feed
avatar
T. Otal Filthman @newcartographer.bsky.social

www.upjohn.org/research-hig...

sep 6, 2025, 5:35 pm • 0 0

Replies

avatar
Oh no oh wow @ohnowow.bsky.social

From this article:

Of course, the benefits of new housing units don't reach everyone equally. In particularly poor neighborhoods with high vacancy rates, adding vacant housing units might not affect prices much. It might even compound a neighborhood's deterioration. Vacancies also won't lower rents in areas currently charging the minimum cost of housing, that is, the lowest rent required to keep a habitable unit on the market. Housing people who can't afford this rate requires a different policy solution, such as rent vouchers, public housing, or incentives to landlords to lower prices.
sep 6, 2025, 5:38 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
T. Otal Filthman @newcartographer.bsky.social

And? Building more housing is necessary but not sufficient. That is the basic YIMBY liberal stance.

sep 6, 2025, 5:41 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
T. Otal Filthman @newcartographer.bsky.social

The point is to create more vacancies in areas with high demand. That won’t help people who live in low demand areas already. For people that can’t afford housing there you need additional policies.

sep 6, 2025, 5:43 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
T. Otal Filthman @newcartographer.bsky.social

But without building more housing, more and more people get pushed to the periphery and out of housing all together. Which is why CA has more homelessness than WV

sep 6, 2025, 5:44 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
T. Otal Filthman @newcartographer.bsky.social

“Finally, we conclude by emphasizing that new market-rate housing is necessary but not sufficient.” cayimby.org/research/sup...

sep 6, 2025, 5:47 pm • 0 0 • view