The other day, Tony Daysog attempted to tiptoe his way around his “support” for increasing protections for renters that are being pushed out of Alameda’s housing market to try to somehow align that with his “there’s too much housing” position and voting against a housing project because the developer decided to build very low income units which earned a 20% density bonus.
He attempted to glom on to a singular section in a larger piece about rent control which referenced the San Francisco Mission Market rate housing moratorium. In typical Tony Daysog fashion his comment, that he wanted us all to find and reference, was a lot of “on this hand, but on the other hand” but did nothing to telegraph what Tony Daysog actually feels on the issue other than him attempting to gauge which way the political wind might be blowing. From his EBX comment and then cut and paste here:
“Conventional supply-demand economics says something like prices tend to rise when supply is artificially controlled, especially in the face of growing demand. If so, then affordable housing advocates are in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t predicament,no?
“If, as this article says, increasing supply by building more apartments, especially market rate, triggers surrounding prices to rise, a point that seems consistent with Nobel economist R. Shiller’s argument about asset bubbles: but, if conventional economics is to be believed, stifling supply also triggers price jumps.
But perhaps Tony Daysog should have waited to see what the analysis of the Mission moratorium (and therefore what would happen when affordable housing advocates block market rate housing) would do on housing prices before he attempted his own attempt to justify his lack of leadership on providing real solutions for families and Alamedans hurting in this housing market right now.
“A temporary moratorium would lead to slightly higher housing prices across the city, have no appreciable effect on no-fault eviction pressures and have a limited impact on the city’s ability to produce affordable housing during the moratorium period,” the report reads.
The analysis concluded that a temporary moratorium would have no potential benefits, such as opening up land for affordable housing developers to buy instead of market rate builders.
The report provides new data on some of the city’s most crucial housing issues. It finds evidence that new market rate housing slightly drives down home prices in the surrounding blocks – a question never studied in San Francisco before, Egan notes.
The report also finds that 97 percent of new upper-income people who move to San Francisco go into existing housing, not new housing.
“This fact alone could cast doubt on the idea that market-rate housing is largely responsible for the clear evidence of gentrification that the neighborhood has experienced,” the report notes.
In addition, “our analysis do not find statistical relationship between housing prices and evictions, in the Mission or in the city as a whole,” the report finds. [emphasis added]
The entire article is worth a read as is the report itself.