"We want to preserve the local character (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) without 'raising crime' (finger quotes) or attracting the wrong element (giant neon sign: No Italians)"
Vacancy rates are very low in cities with high housing prices, and most vacancies in those cities are simply units changing hands between different residents.
As for investors buying up units, we know that they are not keeping them empty, because vacancy rates count investor owned units as well, yet have found the same very low vacancy rates. Why would investors want to lose money on an empty unit when they can simply rent out the unit instead?
Vacant units are not a solution to high housing prices.
Look up e.g. the Vacancy Report by the ACCE institute, which states: "With more than 36,000 unhoused residents, Los Angeles simultaneously has over 93,000 units sitting vacant, nearly half of which are withheld from the housing market."
"Why would investors want to lose money on an empty unit when they can simply rent out the unit instead?"
Properties are often used to protect wealth from recession and inflation. Depending on local laws it might be considered too costly to have e.g. low-paying tenants as the value of a property is affected by occupants. A vacancy tax is often named as a way to force the property owners to have the property be of use to the public.
"There is demand for a lot more housing in LA and other cities, which can only be met by building much more housing."
Why do you think you have to meet demand? (Also in a way that is against(!) the will of the people.) Why do you even WANT more people in overcrowded cities? Is it some kind of Sim City worldview and you are trying to maximize population numbers simply because "big numbers are good"?
Imagine if your neighbor was like "yo, my family wants to live here, so I'll put a bed in your room, so my peeps can live there. And a bed in your kitchen. Also please empty a few fridge compartments, so they can use your fridge."
Anyway. I've addressed a few other points under your NYC comment.
American cities are far from overcrowded. NYC is half the density of Paris, a city many people find desirable and achieves most of its density through 5 story and below buildings.
And besides, it's literally the people themselves who want it- they want to live there, so we should let them.
If we don't want people to have to share housing, there is a simple solution to that. Build more housing so people can have their own apartments and houses.
"Polling shows that building more housing is the will of the people"
Building more housing in their "backyards"? Is this what the poll about? Cause so far you haven't addressed my points and I'm not sure why I should invest more time looking into your points, when you simply ignore mine.
So please answer that first. Is this a poll about people being in favor that some development company starts building "social housing" in their "backyards"?
There is a repair shop owner who regularly films empty places around his location in New York that ask for huge piles of money that no one can pay, for what are basically tiny dumps.
He's struggled to find properties he's looked at, which are not vacant currently.
Your source (Corcoran Group) states a 1.7% in May 2022. That's quite a big difference for a one year.
So what gives?
The source in TheCity article is based on a governmental department survey, while the Corcoran number is based on (property rental and leasing) agencies' listings and reports. The Corcoran report even states (in the smallprint): "Real vacancy is unknown as not all vacant units are publicly listed".
So, what could be a motivation to underreport vacancy and omit unlisted vacant objects, except in the smallprint?
The answer is: "Money".
The article you link to even begins with the words:
"Unfortunately for apartment seekers, record-high rents have done nothing to curb tight vacancy rates market-wide. This limited inventory has kept New York City’s rental market extremely competitive."
The translation is: "It's expensive, but that's totally justified. It's sooo rare."
Could there be a link between rarity, high price and the Corcoran Group? Even the title of their site could have been an indicator: "The Corcoran Group: Luxury International Real Estate"
They are in the business of dealing with expensive apartments. One method to justify it is to communicate rarity.
Another motivation might be that they know the consequences of admitting high vacancy: Eminent domain or vacancy tax, that would pressure them to release the items to the public instead of being able to hoard it to increase prices.
Before you downvote my comment again, please consider why you trust the reports coming from some Luxury Real Estate Company over governmental reports. Especially when the Luxury Real Estate Company admits that the real numbers are "unknown" to them in the smallprint and when their motivation is very, very obvious. (And even stated in the very first two sentences of the article!)
The article you cite says that the government report found that "The report found that 4.54% of all New York apartments are vacant as of 2021." That’s a pretty low vacancy rate for a city! The government survey was also conducted when NYC still felt some of the effects of people avoiding urban areas from the pandemic, while, the newer survey is from 2022, when those effects have mostly gone away. A global real estate company would also want to conduct an accurate survey, because then they can use the information to invest better.
No matter what the source being used, NYC still has a low, low vacancy rate, which landlords love because low supply means they can charge much more.
You brought up Manhattan. I responded with numbers from Manhattan. Now you move the goal post from Manhattan to NYC. Feels more like debate tactics and not like an insightful discussion, ngl.
Also you simply ignore the first two sentences of the article and you ignore the smallprint that I mentioned.
Also you state in a generalized way that real estate companies would want to make an accurate survey to invest better, which sounds like you were addressing the survey by the Corcoran Group, but why would they publish(!) their (according to you) important findings publicly. Why would they want others to invest better. Why would they hide the crucial information in the footprint? (And you didn't even admit that the numbers they provided were simply insufficient. Instead you moved the goalpost to NYC.)
Anyway. I'm not even sure what you want to achieve except building thousands of new buildings in regular people's "backyards". Regular people who mostly don't want it. What is even your goal? What is the problem you want to solve? Can't be solving homelessness, cause the "pretty low" 4.54% vacancy rate in NYC would solve their homelessness many times over. (NYC Population: 8.38 million. NYC Homeless population: 52,137 => NYC Homeless rate: 0.62%)
This would be on top of other policies. (NYC is spending $2.4 billion homeless over the coming year. That's $46,032 per homeless person within a year.)
(Also the homeless population number should be taken with a grain of salt too as there are some benefits to be considered homeless and its nearly impossible to verify whether somebody is really homeless or living with friends or family or just "unlisted, paying with cash".)
So why are the current solutions and the vacancy tax proposals not enough? Why do you side with giant property/investments corporations and against the will of regular people? What's even your motivation and your goal?
Fun fact: that doesn't mean more housing shouldn't be built, and as it currently stands it would do for us to build more affordable housing in areas that are currently net debt locations - like a lot of suburbia.
This was a response to someone who was opposed to the construction of more housing and was trying to use the excuse of vacant housing in places with little demand to oppose the construction of more housing in in demand places. I was pointing out that vacant housing isn't a solution to high rents and that we still need to allow the construction of more housing, especially in in demand cities.
No need to build new stuff in regular people's backyards, when so many properties are vacant or abandoned, simply because some investment corporations bought up stuff to speculate and keep it empty on purpose.
If only these corps weren't donors of politicians...
I had a laugh - here's some improvements you could make: - Contextual lines grouped by the GUI element you press. - Perhaps some events as the game continues. Perhaps Some labels that show prices for items varying wildly upwards.
I have a genuine question; can you ever build anything or is this just the game? Sorry if this is rude I'm trying to not be rude but still I genuinely wanna know if this is funny texts, an actual building game, Im'curious ^^
← Return to game
Comments
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
Just want to leave these compendium sources here for anyone who really wants to say that NIMBYs aren't a problem/ that any given aspect of housing is the one and only problem:
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDnFSlzMlGI&ab_channel=SomeMoreNews
Also, it's clearly a very funny game concept - not a full-throated analysis of housing, maybe don't start deeply rich and nuanced economic, policy, and human rights arguments in the comments of Itch.io games?
Excuse me!? Who let you build this game on MY internet???????
Haha, I remember you from the town halls.
Yes. I hope you signed my petition to keep nasty tasting chlorine out of our tap water, despite the toxic levels of e-coli
The end of video game history.
"We want to preserve the local character (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) without 'raising crime' (finger quotes) or attracting the wrong element (giant neon sign: No Italians)"
excellent writing lmao
Excellent work on sparking conversation!
how do you do anything
You change society.
Reminder that there are not actually that many vacant properties out there where people want to live:
https://ggwash.org/view/68831/no-vacancy-is-a-problem-when-people-need-homes
Vacancy rates are very low in cities with high housing prices, and most vacancies in those cities are simply units changing hands between different residents.
As for investors buying up units, we know that they are not keeping them empty, because vacancy rates count investor owned units as well, yet have found the same very low vacancy rates. Why would investors want to lose money on an empty unit when they can simply rent out the unit instead?
Vacant units are not a solution to high housing prices.
"Why would investors want to lose money on an empty unit when they can simply rent out the unit instead?"
Properties are often used to protect wealth from recession and inflation. Depending on local laws it might be considered too costly to have e.g. low-paying tenants as the value of a property is affected by occupants. A vacancy tax is often named as a way to force the property owners to have the property be of use to the public.
Los Angeles has millions of people, so what we should be looking at is the vacancy rate, which is very low at about 3%: https://therealdeal.com/la/2022/02/09/study-confirms-market-heat-pinch-on-apartm...
The higher the vacancy rate, the lower rents and homelessness typically are: https://www.sightline.org/2022/03/16/homelessness-is-a-housing-problem/
There is demand for a lot more housing in LA and other cities, which can only be met by building much more housing.
It still doesn't make sense to have an empty unit, because there are plenty of high paying tenants in a supply constrained market.
"There is demand for a lot more housing in LA and other cities, which can only be met by building much more housing."
Why do you think you have to meet demand? (Also in a way that is against(!) the will of the people.)
Why do you even WANT more people in overcrowded cities? Is it some kind of Sim City worldview and you are trying to maximize population numbers simply because "big numbers are good"?
Imagine if your neighbor was like "yo, my family wants to live here, so I'll put a bed in your room, so my peeps can live there. And a bed in your kitchen. Also please empty a few fridge compartments, so they can use your fridge."
Anyway. I've addressed a few other points under your NYC comment.
Demand means a lot of people want to live there. America has already sprawled out all it can.
A lot of people want to live there. That’s literally the will of the people.
Polling shows that building more housing is the will of the people: https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/02/03/poll-indicates-wa-favor-missing-middle/
American cities are far from overcrowded. NYC is half the density of Paris, a city many people find desirable and achieves most of its density through 5 story and below buildings.
And besides, it's literally the people themselves who want it- they want to live there, so we should let them.
If we don't want people to have to share housing, there is a simple solution to that. Build more housing so people can have their own apartments and houses.
"Polling shows that building more housing is the will of the people"
Building more housing in their "backyards"? Is this what the poll about? Cause so far you haven't addressed my points and I'm not sure why I should invest more time looking into your points, when you simply ignore mine.
So please answer that first. Is this a poll about people being in favor that some development company starts building "social housing" in their "backyards"?
There is a repair shop owner who regularly films empty places around his location in New York that ask for huge piles of money that no one can pay, for what are basically tiny dumps.
He's struggled to find properties he's looked at, which are not vacant currently.
New York City's vacancy rate is very low: https://inhabit.corcoran.com/new-york-city-residential-rental-market-report-may-...
Manhattan has a vacancy rate of about 1.7%!
This article lists Manhattan's rent vacancy rate as 10.01% for February-July 2021:
https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/5/17/23108792/nyc-apartment-vacancy-rate-housing-em...
Your source (Corcoran Group) states a 1.7% in May 2022. That's quite a big difference for a one year.
So what gives?
The source in TheCity article is based on a governmental department survey, while the Corcoran number is based on (property rental and leasing) agencies' listings and reports.
The Corcoran report even states (in the smallprint): "Real vacancy is unknown as not all vacant units are publicly listed".
So, what could be a motivation to underreport vacancy and omit unlisted vacant objects, except in the smallprint?
The answer is: "Money".
The article you link to even begins with the words:
"Unfortunately for apartment seekers, record-high rents have done nothing to curb tight vacancy rates market-wide. This limited inventory has kept New York City’s rental market extremely competitive."
The translation is: "It's expensive, but that's totally justified. It's sooo rare."
Could there be a link between rarity, high price and the Corcoran Group? Even the title of their site could have been an indicator: "The Corcoran Group: Luxury International Real Estate"
They are in the business of dealing with expensive apartments. One method to justify it is to communicate rarity.
Another motivation might be that they know the consequences of admitting high vacancy: Eminent domain or vacancy tax, that would pressure them to release the items to the public instead of being able to hoard it to increase prices.
Before you downvote my comment again, please consider why you trust the reports coming from some Luxury Real Estate Company over governmental reports. Especially when the Luxury Real Estate Company admits that the real numbers are "unknown" to them in the smallprint and when their motivation is very, very obvious. (And even stated in the very first two sentences of the article!)
Just why?
The article you cite says that the government report found that "The report found that 4.54% of all New York apartments are vacant as of 2021." That’s a pretty low vacancy rate for a city! The government survey was also conducted when NYC still felt some of the effects of people avoiding urban areas from the pandemic, while, the newer survey is from 2022, when those effects have mostly gone away. A global real estate company would also want to conduct an accurate survey, because then they can use the information to invest better.
No matter what the source being used, NYC still has a low, low vacancy rate, which landlords love because low supply means they can charge much more.
You brought up Manhattan. I responded with numbers from Manhattan. Now you move the goal post from Manhattan to NYC. Feels more like debate tactics and not like an insightful discussion, ngl.
Also you simply ignore the first two sentences of the article and you ignore the smallprint that I mentioned.
Also you state in a generalized way that real estate companies would want to make an accurate survey to invest better, which sounds like you were addressing the survey by the Corcoran Group, but why would they publish(!) their (according to you) important findings publicly. Why would they want others to invest better. Why would they hide the crucial information in the footprint? (And you didn't even admit that the numbers they provided were simply insufficient. Instead you moved the goalpost to NYC.)
Anyway.
I'm not even sure what you want to achieve except building thousands of new buildings in regular people's "backyards". Regular people who mostly don't want it. What is even your goal? What is the problem you want to solve?
Can't be solving homelessness, cause the "pretty low" 4.54% vacancy rate in NYC would solve their homelessness many times over. (NYC Population: 8.38 million. NYC Homeless population: 52,137 => NYC Homeless rate: 0.62%)
This would be on top of other policies. (NYC is spending $2.4 billion homeless over the coming year. That's $46,032 per homeless person within a year.)
(Also the homeless population number should be taken with a grain of salt too as there are some benefits to be considered homeless and its nearly impossible to verify whether somebody is really homeless or living with friends or family or just "unlisted, paying with cash".)
So why are the current solutions and the vacancy tax proposals not enough? Why do you side with giant property/investments corporations and against the will of regular people? What's even your motivation and your goal?
Fun fact: that doesn't mean more housing shouldn't be built, and as it currently stands it would do for us to build more affordable housing in areas that are currently net debt locations - like a lot of suburbia.
This was a response to someone who was opposed to the construction of more housing and was trying to use the excuse of vacant housing in places with little demand to oppose the construction of more housing in in demand places. I was pointing out that vacant housing isn't a solution to high rents and that we still need to allow the construction of more housing, especially in in demand cities.
No need to build new stuff in regular people's backyards, when so many properties are vacant or abandoned, simply because some investment corporations bought up stuff to speculate and keep it empty on purpose.
If only these corps weren't donors of politicians...
can you actually challenge the nimbys or no
Here? no. Out there? Yes.
music 10/10, congrats
I had a laugh - here's some improvements you could make:
- Contextual lines grouped by the GUI element you press.
- Perhaps some events as the game continues. Perhaps Some labels that show prices for items varying wildly upwards.
I have a genuine question; can you ever build anything or is this just the game? Sorry if this is rude I'm trying to not be rude but still I genuinely wanna know if this is funny texts, an actual building game, Im'curious ^^
Unfortunately NIMBY's have made it impossible. Please attend your next town hall to address this.
is that a joke or is there an actual townhall
Maybe in the next patch.
I'm just here for the chip-jazz.
The graphics aren't realistic but the gameplay sure is! 10/10
You're right, there's absolutely no way the NIMBYs would let their lawns go that brown.