Thank you. I have started reading through this but want to confirm.. is this a pre-print? In between paragraphs in the data section, it literally says “[Figure 2 here].”

> Why do many commenters on this sub advocate for gentrification?

Nobody is. It's a biproduct of other things that happen - such as investments in infrastructure, increased demand for skilled labor, improved education, etc.

We cannot stop gentrification. We can only prepare for it, smartly. Of course, almost no community ever does because of NIMBY assclowns.

> luxury housing

Frankly, we do not have the luxury to pick & chose what kind of housing we need.

Building specifically middle-class and lower-income housing is not a very profitable venture for housing developers. If we say "no" to a luxury building, then we risk nothing being built. The BPDA certainly doesn't make it attractive for developers to want to build here anyways.

High skilled workers are moving to Boston faster than we can house them. If there is no luxury building for them to move to, they will move into a 100-year old triple-decker typically occupied by working class families and deepen our already extraordinary housing crisis.

> Why are many of you against rent control?

Rent control doesn't work.

> Are you aware that building luxury housing... is gentrification?

That's not how it works.
Again, new workers will either move to luxury housing - or move to the housing typically occupied by working-class populations. Landlords will raise rent with demand, and long-term renters will be priced out and forced to move. And the condos will still come later, when there are fewer community hurdles.

You either build condos now and buy working class people some extra time. Or you kick them out now. What would you rather have?

For clarity, building new housing in those Chelsea, Revere, Malden is only possible because there are fewer NIMBY roadblocks. I'd love for more luxury housing in already wealthy parts of town.

> Would you be open to luxury housing that is initially rent-controlled for some years before it can become market-rate? This would be similar to 421-A in NYC.

If it's a nice place to live, sure.

> Would you be open to luxury housing that is initially rent-controlled that can be sold to the renters there for a below-market-rate price?

Already happening, sort of. Most luxury buildings are required have a certain number of affordable housing units (obtainable by lottery). These are bought and sold at reduced rates. There isn't enough of them, IMO.

> Do you have another idea

Build as much and as fast as possible. That's all there is to it. MBTA investments would be nice, but the Commuter Rail is not a solution when people moving here want an urban life and grab a train that comes every 10 minutes, rather than every hour.

The Suffolk Downs project is something I'm looking forward to, but even that's somehow getting fucked up by parking requirements and stupid fucking bullshit. Still gonna be worthwhile, but the red tape is ridiculous.

If the we expanded Blue Line to Lynn, it would help a lot since downtown Lynn has a lot of unoccupied apartments and weak access to the city.

No problem. Some good discussions along these lines happens over at /r/left_urbanism!

To clarify, I was referring to another commenter talking about how “life is life” in regards to gentrification and displacement of long-term residents.

I am veryy familiar with those policies and the history of real estate, but I hope others on this sub can learn about them!

Thank you for the links!

Local Effects of Large New Apartment Buildings in Low-Income ... - Gwern.net https://gwern.net/docs/economics/2021-asquith.pdf

Of course! And I agree with you. I wish more people would approach the topic with nuance rather than just “rent control = bad” “more supply = good”

And on your point about displacement/gentrification being just “life”, absolutely agree with you. If you take the time to learn about redlining, urban renewal, white flight, etc you’ll learn that there is nothing natural about the housing market. The government has intervened in the past to fuck things up and they can intervene now to help fix what they messed up.

As for LIHTC and IZ, here are some links! (Since they’re complex and I won’t do it justice)

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-low-income-housing-tax-credit-and-how-does-it-work

https://inclusionaryhousing.org/inclusionary-housing-explained/what-is-inclusionary-housing/

Even in the burbs, I can't stand the "I grew up here so I matter more". Nah, you're just one vote guy.

That’s true. I thought a discussion might help, but it obviously has not.

You're going to have a hard time getting an answer to this from people who worship Capitalism.

Thank you for your detailed response!! I appreciate you. I am going to educate myself on that amendment.

I can only see the abstract. Can you link to the pdf?

Your point 2 Is generally known as the "induced demand" hypothesis and is deeply controversial (to say the least) among economists who study housing. And starting with "are you aware" is pretty close to gaslighting and very likely to rub people the wrong way.

Not just billionaires. Massachusetts really should have a progressive income tax that sits somewhere between Virginia's and California's, and at the federal level we should repeal the Trump and Bush tax cuts.

Regarding point 2.

https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01055/100977/Local-Effects-of-Large-New-Apartment-Buildings-in

We should do a few things, some of which that will certainly never, ever happen in any political environment even half-resembling what we currently have:

1. Take zoning regulations away from localities and then overhaul and streamline them at the state level. All the usual suggestions of eliminating single-family-only zoning, parking minimums, minimum setbacks, along with a plethora of others can be tossed in here. Take away (most) opportunities for community input in regards to what developers can do on the properties that they own. This is going to result in a lot of new market rate housing.

2. Yes, do a little bit of rent control. Do it in ways that don't neuter the private market.

3. Implement a land-value tax so that the parking lot owners and the slumlords and single-family home owners will start to sell their lots in denser areas and those near to transit. This is unlikely to happen.

4. Make improvements to transit, both small ones like much better and more frequent busses and larger ones like electrified regional rail. This will reduce the crushing demand that surrounds our limited areas with great transit accessibility.

5. Get Congress to repeal the Faircloth amendment and pass laws that give hundreds of billions of dollars to states that construct and manage high-quality mixed-income public housing of all densities and sizes. Charge both market rate and below-market rate rents on a lottery system. After the government has recouped their investment rents should be set in a way that merely maintains the building and pays off any debts. This will never happen.

We live in a capitalist system so displacement is inevitable, whether you build or not, unfortunately. However I think that the world I pictured above would be a better one for displaced people and the rest of us.

That is true, but in NYC, for example, the board votes on what the maximum % increase can be. Such as 2.5%. Do you think such a policy could be beneficial here?

On your last paragraph: Can you please elaborate on gentrification creating jobs and easing traffic?

I think that there would not be a change in traffic, or there may potentially be a slight uptick in tradfic. My thinking is that if the new residents use the T, that is the same as the now-displaced residents using the T so net zero change. I am also thinking that wealthy individuals moving in will want to bring their car(s), which can lead to an uptick in traffic if they use it any more frequently than “rarely.”

For jobs, my thinking is that there would be a net zero difference in jobs even as new shops open up.

Again, this is based on my thinking. I would love to hear your thoughts.

I have mixed feelings about Lincoln. It is an agricultural community that used extremely exclusionary practices to preserve open space. Which to me means that it should be treated as a nature/agricultural preserve and the state should have the right of first refusal on any property sale. The goal would be to eventually eliminating all buildings except historically/architecturally important ones and rewilding land.

Given Lincoln's proximity to Boston, it would be transit accessible nature space which is more important than most people can possibly imagine. One way to think of it us as a potential addition to Middlesex Fells and Blue Hills.

Adding an additional note to the already excellent answers others have already posted:

Rent stabilization heavily incentivizes landlords to increase rent by the absolute maximum allowed every year even if they wouldn't otherwise, because failing to increase rent one year will restrict the possibility of increasing it next year. That means exponential growth: at 10% growth/year, rents go up by 2.5x in the next decade. It's a truly awful policy which looks good on a very cursory glance but will hurt exactly those its designed to help (since it only applies to older apartments).

Okay, thank you!!

Haha

Implementing rent control will make it more difficult for the city to attract developers to build new housing (see St. Paul for example). Reducing the quantity and quality of housing would make it more difficult for the city to continue growing. We can hope our local industries will keep raising salaries just enough keep their employees here like in San Francisco, but if they decide it's not worth it and leave then we could see the city end up like any of the rust belt cities that lost it's major industries and never recovered. Basically, it's very difficult for cities to maintain or improve their standard of living without growing, it's more difficult for them to continue to grow without enough housing for the people needed to keep that growth going.

Swamp Yankee central mixed with nimby new homeowners

No clue on the data, but it’s a noticeable trend. The best way to delay gentrification is to build both luxury and market rate housing in the most desireable areas.

You need enough on the market in the most sought after areas to meet and exceed demand - otherwise they will look elsewhere. It can’t be all luxury or more people will be priced out - but luxury is needed to provide that higher price point and prevent further increases to existing housing. Places like seaport are needed - although high end rentals are really not as helpful imo.

As others have mentioned, transit oriented areas will ALWAYS be the first to gentrify. This can’t and shouldn’t be avoided. If someone on DOT is priced out of an area close to the T I know it sucks - but that same gentrification creates jobs, eases traffic and is generally a net positive. Affordable housing is generally less accessible housing - that’s a worldwide truth.

The vacancy rate in greater Boston is exceptionally low.