Anyway, my below post on rent control has taken some hits largely because I was trying to speak in generalities and was therefore not being clear.
To respond, I don't currently believe that NYC's rent control program has any serious negative impact on the housing supply. Once upon a time that was likely the case, but the slow and steady decontrol over the past 30+ years has made rent control a small part of the issue. I do think rent control is generally bad bad policy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that once its imposed the appropriate policy is sudden and total decontrol.
I also don't think rent stabilization is particularly bad policy - the allowable annual rent increases are fairly high and probably do little to distort the housing market. They smooth out spikes and prevent landlords from screwing captive tenants in NYC's fairly sticky market.
Nor do I think all efforts to preserve "neighborhood character" are bad. I just think that often such efforts are simply designed to restrict the housing supply and preserve land/property values for existing owners. Restricting supply is one way to keep the price up.
However, there are plenty of places in Manhattan where adding some taller buildings here and there - sometimes true high rises and sometimes simply adding a couple of floors - would be possible and desirable. People argue that developers build highrises, and turn around and charge top dollar for them. Of course they do. But what I submit is that Manhattan's problem, overall, isn't that it has too many high rise apartment buildings but that it has too few. A way to bring the price down is to increase the overall supply of the housing stock. Even increasing the amount of high end housing stock will, to some degree, lower prices in the lower end market. Obviously, it's necessary to increase not just the square footage but the overall number of units. But, a sharp increases in the number of housing units over a relatively short period of time would cause prices to drop. You need supply to increase faster than demand.
Sunday, January 04, 2004
GOP Team Leader
So, I just watched a creepy Candy Crowley snooty dismissive report about Dean's "internet support," which was followed a few minutes later by a report praising Bush's "grass roots campaign" because of his... GOPTeam Leader program. Which, of course, is... on the internet.
Saturday, January 03, 2004
Dean Jewish Wife Watch
Cal Thomas:
-
Dean's wife is Jewish and his two children are being raised Jewish, which is strange at best, considering that the two faiths take a distinctly different view of Jesus.
Advocating Genocide
I can't verify this, but I've seen a couple places that Michael Savage has been saying, with respect to giving aid to Iran's earthquake victims, something along the lines of "We are sending these people aid? It's unbelievable to me. We should be sending them smallpox infested blankets."
Is there anything that can get you kicked off talk radio?
Is there anything that can get you kicked off talk radio?
A Promise Made is a Promise Kept
Bush was very fond of saying that to Veterans while on the campaign.
-
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is considering dramatic increases in the fees military retirees pay for prescription drugs, a step that would roll back a benefit extended 33 months ago and risk alienating an important Republican constituency at the dawn of the 2004 campaign season.
Pentagon budget documents indicate that retirees may be asked to pay $10 -- up from $3 -- for each 90-day generic prescription filled by mail through Tricare, the military's health insurance program. Tricare's current $9 co-pay for a three-month supply of each brand-name drug would jump to $20.
The proposal also would impose charges for drugs the retirees now receive free at military hospitals and clinics. There would be a $10 fee for each generic prescription and a $20 charge for brand-name drugs dispensed at those facilities.
A Pentagon spokesman declined Wednesday to comment on the drug plan, calling it "pre-decisional." But word of the proposal was being spread at the speed of light by veterans service organizations, who were urging their thousands of members to send calls and letters of protest to the White House and members of Congress.
Rent Control vs. Building Height Restrictions
For the record I think rent control is generally a very bad thing (one can make a case for much looser regulations which slow the rise of rents moderately , but let's ignore that for the moment). And, the record shows that rent control in New York (about the only place it exists at all) has been abysmal on both efficiency and equity grounds. That is, it was an extraordinarily expensive way to do very little to help people at the lower end of the economic spectrum.
But, Big Media Matt is quite right that in much of the country, including DC and New York, zoning regulations which prevent an increase in building heights have a much bigger impact on the (non)existence of relatively affordable housing. While rent control programs are an expensive way to do not too much for the poor, building height restrictions are an expensive way to do something (generally) for the relatively well off.
One could alleviate this problem while still having some respect for the very real issue of "neighborhood character." Walking around parts of New York a few weeks ago I saw plenty of examples where developers were allowed to build upwards and did so very poorly. Neighborhood character rarely has much to do with the existence or lack of tall buildings per se. They coexist rather nicely in my neighborhood for the most part. It is important to preserve street level access and retail, the original facade, the small "details" which make urban streetscapes interesting. This kind of thing can be done, though sadly it often isn't. For some reason local zoning boards rarely extract such concessions even though they're handing out a fairly valuable prize to developers. There are probably obvious reasons for that.
But, yes, generally - building up is the answer.
But, Big Media Matt is quite right that in much of the country, including DC and New York, zoning regulations which prevent an increase in building heights have a much bigger impact on the (non)existence of relatively affordable housing. While rent control programs are an expensive way to do not too much for the poor, building height restrictions are an expensive way to do something (generally) for the relatively well off.
One could alleviate this problem while still having some respect for the very real issue of "neighborhood character." Walking around parts of New York a few weeks ago I saw plenty of examples where developers were allowed to build upwards and did so very poorly. Neighborhood character rarely has much to do with the existence or lack of tall buildings per se. They coexist rather nicely in my neighborhood for the most part. It is important to preserve street level access and retail, the original facade, the small "details" which make urban streetscapes interesting. This kind of thing can be done, though sadly it often isn't. For some reason local zoning boards rarely extract such concessions even though they're handing out a fairly valuable prize to developers. There are probably obvious reasons for that.
But, yes, generally - building up is the answer.
One Point per Day
Kerry continues his flameout in NH.
I really don't mean to bash Kerry so much. The reason I do is that I'm a former feeling-rather-let-down supporter.
I really don't mean to bash Kerry so much. The reason I do is that I'm a former feeling-rather-let-down supporter.
Wingnut Theology
I'm no theologian, but this one struck me as particularly odd:
Everyone should send this classic to Mr. "Darth" Grills at darthgrills@hotmail.com.
-
Jesus taught that unless you obey God’s Old Testament laws to the letter, you don’t have a fighting chance at getting into heaven.
Everyone should send this classic to Mr. "Darth" Grills at darthgrills@hotmail.com.
More Religion
A commenter over at Ailes' place says rather succinctly something I've tried to explain with more words:
Indeed.
-
This is why some Dems feel like they have to stay distant from religion when they campaign. It's not because they don't have strong faith, it's that no matter what they do, it will never be the right way to hold that faith. They end up looking weak and worse, anti-God when they get sucked into that lose/lose argument.
Indeed.
No Mixed Marriages
Yes, keep this up right wing. It's gonna work well. Linked from Townhall:
(via Ailes)
Look forward to Dean's "Jewish wife and children" being brought up with increasing regularity.
-
Howard Dean’s comments place him squarely in the “Jesus of convenience” camp. His wife and children are Jewish. Cool. But I have to wonder: if Howie’s faith in Jesus Christ is so important to him, why didn’t he marry someone with the same faith? Why didn’t he insist on raising his children in that faith? Say it with me, on three: because what faith Howard Dean has in Jesus isn’t central to his life.
(via Ailes)
Look forward to Dean's "Jewish wife and children" being brought up with increasing regularity.
Friday, January 02, 2004
Random Musing on Guns and Crime
Tim Lambert's always your one stop shop for all things John Lott, and for all things guns&crime. And, this may have been something he's addressed one or many times but I don't quite remember and it's been floating around my brain for awhile.
Anyway, John Lott claimed to show that "More Guns=Less Crime." As has been explained elsewhere, even if Lott's results were to be believed, they don't quite show this link anyway...
But, what defenders and attackers of Lott and/or his central thesis have mostly agreed with (at least the intelligent reasonable ones) is the fact that the current state of the literature seems to show that there isn't much of a relationship betwen guns and crime at all. It could be a bit positive, or a bit negative, or statistically insignificant. So, at first pass this admittedly is more of an anti-gun control result. If more guns don't lead to more crime, then there isn't really any compelling state interest in passing gun control measures, so...
What I do know is Lambert and others have pointed out is that there are serious problems with using the county level data used in the analysis. The specific problem is that the data is just bad. It's measured poorly, or contains what is called "measurement error." In other words, when the true underlying number is, say "100," there's a pretty big probability that the recorded data is "20" or "500." It's just noisy.
The thing about noisy data is that what it tends to do when one tries to estimate relationships between variables increase the likelihood that no relationship is found. Noisy data doesn't just reduce the precision of the estimate, it systematically biases the estimated relationship to 0. In other words, the estimate doesn't suggest that there is no relationship with any confidence- it's just a result of your data being crap.
The point is that if that's where the results are coming from, then it's more correct to say that "current research has lacked the appropriate data to adequately address the question" rather than "current research hasn't shown there to be a relationship either way."
Anyway, this may have been covered elsewhere, and it isn't meant to be a serious attack on Lott's, or anyone else's work, just an attack on the "standard interpretation" which seems to be floating around...
Also, I don't care much - guns really aren't my issue either way.
Anyway, John Lott claimed to show that "More Guns=Less Crime." As has been explained elsewhere, even if Lott's results were to be believed, they don't quite show this link anyway...
But, what defenders and attackers of Lott and/or his central thesis have mostly agreed with (at least the intelligent reasonable ones) is the fact that the current state of the literature seems to show that there isn't much of a relationship betwen guns and crime at all. It could be a bit positive, or a bit negative, or statistically insignificant. So, at first pass this admittedly is more of an anti-gun control result. If more guns don't lead to more crime, then there isn't really any compelling state interest in passing gun control measures, so...
What I do know is Lambert and others have pointed out is that there are serious problems with using the county level data used in the analysis. The specific problem is that the data is just bad. It's measured poorly, or contains what is called "measurement error." In other words, when the true underlying number is, say "100," there's a pretty big probability that the recorded data is "20" or "500." It's just noisy.
The thing about noisy data is that what it tends to do when one tries to estimate relationships between variables increase the likelihood that no relationship is found. Noisy data doesn't just reduce the precision of the estimate, it systematically biases the estimated relationship to 0. In other words, the estimate doesn't suggest that there is no relationship with any confidence- it's just a result of your data being crap.
The point is that if that's where the results are coming from, then it's more correct to say that "current research has lacked the appropriate data to adequately address the question" rather than "current research hasn't shown there to be a relationship either way."
Anyway, this may have been covered elsewhere, and it isn't meant to be a serious attack on Lott's, or anyone else's work, just an attack on the "standard interpretation" which seems to be floating around...
Also, I don't care much - guns really aren't my issue either way.
Rethink
I have to say after more reflection I'm not sure I like the legal tactic outlined below - either on principled or practical grounds. As one commenter pointed out, it is essentially asking someone to give up their right to avoid self-incrimination. On practical grounds it doesn't really do anything - any journalist feeling (wrongly) bound by their duty to keep the source confidential isn't likely to drop a dime on the perp anyway.
Waive It
They should squeal anyway, but this is something:
A certain occupant of the White House would, if he gave a shit, strongly encourage them to sign.
-
FBI investigators looking into the criminal leak of a CIA agent’s identity have asked Bush Administration officials including senior political adviser Karl Rove to release reporters from any confidentiality agreements regarding conversations about the agent. If signed, the single-page requests made over the last week would give investigators new ammunition for questioning reporters who have so far, according to those familiar with the case, not disclosed the names of administration officials who divulged that Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson, worked for the CIA.
While irregular, the move is not unprecedented. Various officials were told from the start that such a request might be made. Along with the recusal this week of Attorney General John Ashcroft, this suggests that investigators are ready to enter the next stage of the probe. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has been named special prosecutor to oversee the inquiry. The FBI has already extensively re-interviewed some White House officials using emails and phone logs from their search to press for the identity of the leaker. “They are taking this very seriously,” says one close to the case.
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press, says asking people who are in the universe of possible suspects to sign such a document is unusual, though not unheard of. "From the prosecutors' point of view, it is likely a precursor to subpoenaing journalists to testify before a grand jury, and then asking a judge to hold them in contempt if they refuse to do so," she noted.
A certain occupant of the White House would, if he gave a shit, strongly encourage them to sign.
Latest Poll
These numbers are pretty interesting (yes it's Drudge but I heard it on CNN too).
We have a hypothetical national election much as we have a hypothetical national primary, but both Dean and Lieberman are within the margin of error against Bush.
The other interesting thing is that if you remove Dean from the equation, his support seems to jump evenly (roughly) to the other candidates. I think Amurca hasn't yet gotten the message that this is a Dean/Clark race. Again, that's the mythical national primary and not the state-by-state battle (Actually, congressional district by congressional district battle) that really matters, but still.
We have a hypothetical national election much as we have a hypothetical national primary, but both Dean and Lieberman are within the margin of error against Bush.
The other interesting thing is that if you remove Dean from the equation, his support seems to jump evenly (roughly) to the other candidates. I think Amurca hasn't yet gotten the message that this is a Dean/Clark race. Again, that's the mythical national primary and not the state-by-state battle (Actually, congressional district by congressional district battle) that really matters, but still.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)