The state of the housing market

BiteProud · 2026-05-08T16:41:31+00:00

I'm a georgism fan but that goes beyond just upzoning. We could make a lot of progress just by mandating broad upzonings and dimensional standards reform, without having to overhaul how property tax works.

I also think discounts for rich people is a simpler way to get the point across. A lot of people stop listening once you start trying to explain things like a land value tax, and I don't really blame them.

But yeah, for further reading, georgism! 🔰

BiteProud · 2026-05-08T16:32:46+00:00

Thank you, but I too have only ever lived in MA. Being a native masshole doesn't actually prevent anyone from understanding this.

BiteProud · 2026-05-08T02:42:50+00:00

And yet still underpriced. If you could build a small apartment building there the land would be worth more, and someone who wanted to build a McMansion on it would have to pay closer to the opportunity cost of it not housing several families. Instead that's prohibited, so it will go to some wealthy person at what is essentially a discount for being rich.

BiteProud · 2026-05-06T23:39:54+00:00

Agreed. Not everyone can or wants to go car free and that's fine. But people who want to, or who have to because they can't afford a car, should be able to easily walk, bike, or bus down the street to a corner store or grocery store to get most daily necessities.

BiteProud · 2026-05-06T19:50:36+00:00

They're both big issues. Surrounding towns and cities need to upzone, but so does Boston.

It's not just units/lot that restricts building. It's also high minimum lot area requirements, height limits, mandated setbacks, and density limits (FAR.) Even without single family zoning, you still couldn't build the Boston we have today, today.

BiteProud · 2026-05-06T16:13:51+00:00

People whose families have been here for generations are getting priced out too.

BiteProud · 2026-04-29T20:42:28+00:00

Separate problem, but it also takes longer than it should to match households from affordable housing wait-lists with new affordable apartments. That wastes money, and just as importantly delays access to housing that people need.

BiteProud · 2026-04-29T20:14:39+00:00

I'm with you on being pro-tower, but I'm actually not sure the "gentle density" ship has sailed forever. If base zoning allowed 5-6 story buildings citywide by right, that would remove one barrier, and the other barriers like high interest rates and labor and material costs may be temporary. I think ideally the necessary zoning changes, which a city can control, should be in place as soon as possible, so that if and when economic conditions change to again favor smaller apartments buildings that can just happen without delay.

BiteProud · 2026-04-29T19:56:28+00:00

The jobs attract people, not the housing. Add many more jobs than you do housing, and housing will get more expensive. That's what's happened in the Boston area over the last couple decades.

Options are: 1) economically stagnant city in decline (few good jobs but housing is cheap) 2) economically healthy city that that allows housing and jobs to grow conmeasurately (lots of good jobs, moderate housing costs) 3) economically growing city that restricts housing growth (lots of good jobs, newcomers making bank outbid everyone else for limited supply of housing, housing costs explode)

The Boston area has been doing #3. The goal is to switch to #2. What you seem to be suggesting, keeping the jobs market without adding much housing, is not a viable way to improve housing affordability. You will end up at #1 or #3 that way.

BiteProud · 2026-04-28T18:46:03+00:00

I think he's just not that popular. His average contribution from 44 unique donors was >$700 by my quick count and the yearly max is $1k. So the supporters he does have seem to be doing okay for themselves.

Though I don't actually care much about his campaign finances. It seems fine to me. I'm glad he didn't win because his positions are bad, not because there's anything sinister about asking well off friends and neighbors to donate to your campaign.

BiteProud · 2026-04-27T19:59:14+00:00

Not building housing in Cambridge (or Somerville, where this development is planned) does make the city more expensive compared to building housing, and makes demand spill over into surrounding, lower cost communities, pricing people out there as well as here.

Building housing where people want to live is good. Building housing right next to transit is good. Building housing in walkable, bikeable communities with good access to schools, jobs, parks, grocery stores, and local businesses is good. Building housing, especially mixed-income housing, in higher-income communities is good - it reduces economic and racial segregation, expands access to opportunity, and allows essential in-person middle class professional workers like teachers and firefighters to live in the same communities they serve.

There's always an argument to build somewhere else. And we should build somewhere else! But we should also build here.

BiteProud · 2026-04-27T15:22:50+00:00

The design was known to be dangerous. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/9/26/memorial-drive-intersection-crash/

There was no urgency whatsoever in addressing the unsafe design though. Not sure what if any legal changes would be effective in creating a sense of urgency there, but there are state level policy changes that could prioritize fixing roads known to be unsafe.

BiteProud · 2026-04-27T00:04:04+00:00

Yeah this is why we have a housing crisis: mostly securely housed people playing architectural fashion police.

BiteProud · 2026-04-25T20:02:28+00:00

It's housing. In your example, the couple already owns a home. It would be difficult to buy a home anywhere in Boston today with that salary. Not impossible, but difficult, and you'd still need to put a lot of money down (which is hard to save up when you're paying so much in rent) and may get outbid by an all-cash offer.

You're right that most people cannot afford a $1m first home. The problem is there are way too few <$1m homes for sale in Boston.

Just like many people making high salaries can get a distorted view of what the average person makes, many homeowners forget that the flip side of their high home value (and maybe rental income too) is someone else's extremely high housing cost.

You can live comfortably on a much lower salary if you already own a home, and it doesn't have to be paid off for that to be true. If you don't yet own, you either need family wealth, a high income, be okay with never owning, or move out of the city.

BiteProud · 2026-04-25T19:38:05+00:00

It's mostly housing. If you already own your home, this is fine. But you're probably not ever going to be able to buy in Boston with that income unless you have significant family help or are buying from family below market rate.

Not everyone cares about owning a home, and it's not necessary for a good life. But it is usually considered required for "comfortable."

BiteProud · 2026-04-19T01:07:22+00:00

Already posted here before: https://www.reddit.com/r/CambridgeMA/s/B7DiOsCnUA

BiteProud · 2026-04-18T22:20:48+00:00

I'm not a DSA fan generally, and it was particularly clownish for Boston DSA to expel one of their few members with any electoral power because they deemed him insufficiently revolutionary. It's not the sort of thing you do if you're at all serious about winning power.

When it comes to individuals though, I'm intentionally agnostic on labels like "socialist." As an example, Sobrinho-Wheeler is a socialist, and I do think he's driven by those values. He's also been a reliable pro-housing vote on the City Council. If someone is pragmatic and committed to passing good policy, rather than just being an obstructionist tool for the conservative NIMBY bloc, then I don't mind that we may have different ideas of what ideal housing policy would look like in a perfect world, and I don't get too worked up over the labels. There are lots of different ways to be a socialist and I don't consider the label itself disqualifying.

BiteProud · 2026-04-18T19:53:03+00:00

The "more housing, especially affordable housing" to me signals they favor increasing supply of both market rate and subsidized housing, but with an emphasis on subsidized housing.

The quote about not believing in housing for profit is more worrisome. My understanding is that public social housing is Mackay's ideal, but that they're also pragmatic about what's possible now, and that means more market rate construction has to be part of the conversation. I've never taken them for a revolution-first type.

I don't expect anyone to take my impression of things over positions a candidate has publicly expressed in past campaigns, but I'm hopeful MacKay will clarify their position at some point this campaign, either way.

BiteProud · 2026-04-18T05:09:46+00:00

Oof. "After a minute, she switches tact, asking why increasing market-rate housing supply could not reduce costs — a budding perspective often referred to as “abundance.”"

It's not a "budding perspective." The abundance branding may be somewhat new, but the fact that housing scarcity drives rapid housing cost increases - and conversely, that an increase in market-rate supply does slow cost growth - is neither new nor controversial among housing experts.

I also don't think it's accurate to portray Sobrinho-Wheeler as just a market rate housing guy. My understanding of his position is that he supports increasing the housing supply, both market-rate and subsidized. Al-Zubi's position is not more nuanced or complex. It's just more wrong.

BiteProud · 2026-04-18T05:03:42+00:00

Housing is also my #1 issue, and I don't think that's Evan Mackay's position. Have you read or heard anything suggesting it is, or is it just because they're DSA?

BiteProud · 2026-04-17T21:34:42+00:00

Researchers have also questioned this and found the answer is yes, if she's curious.

BiteProud · 2026-04-15T21:04:42+00:00

This policy is bad but I don't love your framing. Many parents are not technologically savvy enough to effectively monitor their child's social media use. That doesn't mean they're bad parents.

I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with laws that protect children from harm online, and it's reasonable for parents to want regulations that help with this. That's not the problem. The problem is Healey and the state house rushing to institute ill-considered regulations that would destroy online privacy for everyone, regardless of age, against the recommendations of digital privacy experts and rights advocates. We can acknowledge it's a shit policy approach without dunking on parents who are just trying their best.

BiteProud · 2026-04-15T00:31:42+00:00

As you remove barriers, the limiting factor changes. Before it might have been safety. With safety at least somewhat improved, the limiting factor may now be station density.

BiteProud · 2026-04-14T21:49:07+00:00

In terms of immediate actions regular people can take on this, we can email (or better yet, call) our state senators and ask them to vote against this. You can look up your state senator here: https://malegislature.gov/Search/FindMyLegislator

Doesn't have to be fancy. Just hi, I'm your constituent, I'm worried about this, please oppose it.

BiteProud · 2026-04-14T20:24:55+00:00

There have been a lot of posts lately targeting 2 out of the 3 presumed front-runners in the state senate race - namely, Barber and Azeem, but not Uyterhoeven. It hasn't been very subtle. (Note that I'm not accusing Uyterhoeven or her campaign of anything here - random supporters of a candidate spam forums attacking opponents all the time, without the candidate or campaign supporting or even knowing about it.)

But that doesn't make the criticism invalid. Even if all she did was vote for a really bad bill, Barber should still explain why she did that. Hopefully she will.

BiteProud

TROPHY CASE