Supply and Demand Denialism

Progressives often argue that conservatives are anti-science because many conservatives deny the reality and seriousness of climate change, and some religious conservatives reject the theory of evolution.

But some progressives are as skeptical of the conventional wisdom of economics as conservatives are of evolutionary biology or climate science. In particular, one basic tenet of economics is the law of supply and demand: if you raise the supply of X enough, the prices go down. If you lower the supply, the prices go up.

But some progressives seem to believe that this law does not apply to housing. For example, an article some months ago in the New York Times (probably the most leftist among major U.S. news sources) quoted an official at an affordable housing advocacy group as follows: “Increasing the supply is not going to increase the number of affordable units; that is a complete and utter fallacy.” The Times then supplied absolutely no rebuttal or response to this point of view, implicitly treating it as gospel.* Similarly, numerous leftist housing advocates in San Francisco are supply-and-demand denialists.

In reality, cities where lots of housing gets built tend to have lower housing prices than cities where it is hard to build. (See for example the “Home Prices and New Construction” chart in this article). So why is denialism so widespread? Denialists make several major arguments. Continue reading

More Evidence That Urbanists Should Support School Choice

A recent scholarly article , “School Choice Programs: The Impacts on Housing Values” reviews literature relating to the impact of charter schools and other types of school choice programs on housing values. The article discusses studies from Minnesota, North Carolina, New York City, and Vermont (among other places) and finds that the traditional American “neighborhood school” system, which locks children into nearby schools, creates a hierarchy of housing values: places with disfavored schools (as a practical matter, anyplace urban or socially diverse) experience degraded housing values, while places with highly reputed schools (usually suburbs) become more desirable.

By contrast, the authors find that school choice programs disrupt this hierarchy.  For example, in Minnesota students can now attend schools in any school district in the state. Even though transportation difficulties prevent many students from taking advantage of this program, property values rose in school districts with weaker academic reputations. Similarly, in New York City the presence of charter schools and magnet schools increased values for nearby property, regardless of the prestige of nearby public schools.

These findings suggest that school choice will make areas with less prestigious schools more desirable — an important finding for weak-market cities with weak public schools.   Today, parents often shun such cities because of their weak public schools.  If school choice programs of various types allow parents to stay in the city without sending their children to typical urban schools, cities will become more desirable.

(Cross-posted from cnu.org)