Posted by: The Tim

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market.

57 responses to “Detailed Study of Land Use Regulations & Home Prices”

  1. deejayoh

    Since home prices are dropping nationally and locally, I guess regulations must be easing?
    Your government at work.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  2. Joel

    Is there anything in there about why regulations didn’t effect the cost of rent nearly as much as the cost of buying a house?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  3. vboring

    excellent, in that case the solution to the housing price crashes is simple:

    add land use regulations

    to be honest, that might actually work, even if it is a bad idea. if people think it’ll be more difficult or expensive to build anything in the future and that it really could become possible to be priced out forever, the speculative value of real estate would increase even if the demand took decades to catch up with excess supply and demographic issues.

    honestly, do we really need any more suburbs anyway?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  4. Deran

    To some great degreee this study is irrelevant without looking at what the regulations were in place to accomplish. Were these regulations there to avoid ecological despoilation? Were they related to any safety or health standards? And if so, do these regualtinos then save the home owner and or society money on the backend, as it were. This is the whole weakness of “economics” analysis are “cost benefit” — the costs and benefits of a social action are not just dolalrs and sents up front. They have to do with helath, ecology, etc.

    My point is that I would be interested in a ccomplimentary study that weighed sale price with non-immiediate, and even non-monetary value gained via the communities land use regs.

    So, really this is half a study?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  5. Sniglet

    I think Tim makes a marvelous point about the time-period used for this study. We’ve already seen how the historical data used by ratings agencies to assess the probable default rates were completely inadequate to foresee what could happen when markets change. Schiller’s approach to look at real-estate with a time horizon spanning centuries makes much more sense, seeing as how real-estate cycles can be generational, lasting decades.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  6. rose-colored-coolaid

    I don’t have the economics degree, and I haven’t dug into this research in detail, but something about this study seems very suspicious to me.

    I mean, if 90% of real estate inflation over the last 17 years came from land-use regulations, what does that really mean? It suggests that despite any/all changes to Seattle since 1989, if we relaxed land-use regulations, then median price would plummet 50%.

    So when do these regulations get changed? I sure as heck don’t want to buy prior to that rapid crash!?!

    </end-strawman-argument>

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  7. Everett_Tom

    I wonder if the regulations in So. Cal, the rust belt, Florida etc.. have suddenly been greatly reduced.. and if not, how come the price is tanking there…

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  8. patient

    I could possibly agree that land use regulation could make up 90% of the price difference between areas. I.e for example between Seattle and Dallas but I call bs on it making up 90% of increases in the same area. My guess is that it’s probably not even 10%.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  9. MisterBubble

    This story doesn’t pass the smell test. I suspect that the newsies are playing fast-and-lose with the interpretation of the results.

    You don’t need a PhD in economics to see the problem: the median home price in Seattle has risen by more than $200,000 in the last seven years, yet land-use regulation has not significantly changed since before that time. These are indisputable facts. Is the argument that the majority of the price increase is due to regulation?

    If so, is the contention that land-use regulations passed nearly a decade ago are the primary driver of price increases today? How do you reconcile that argument with the fact that local population has barely grown since 1999?

    I haven’t read the paper, but here’s what I’m guessing: the researcher probably normalized the data for increased nationwide demand for housing, then did a factor-by-factor comparison of the differences between the various cities. Thus, if you take the bubble-driven increased demand of the last decade as a given, you can make the argument that our prices would have been lower, had we not had such draconian regulation.

    This may be true, but it is not the same thing as saying that our price increases are due to regulation. If I’m right, the proper interpretation of the results is that Seattle housing would be significantly cheaper today if we had less regulation (duh), because we’d just build more crap on the Sammamish plateau.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  10. S-Crow

    I’d say the availability of money to the masses plays more of a role in housing price increases than regulation, among other factors. Did regulation play a role when many of us were involved in multiple offers? Are regulation & mitigation costs for building housing etc..the impetus for creating 100% loans? No.

    Certainly regulation plays a role in construction costs, but if the study is arguing that it plays a central role, I would disagree.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  11. Chris

    Which regulations? Is he assuming anything above IBC as a baseline? In terms of land use regs, its even more difficult to parse out the regulatory “delta” above a baseline, as regs drive higher land prices which in turn create smaller units (which in turn are more affordable than larger houses on bigger lots might have been.

    Also, in many cases, the market is not constrained by a zoning envelope or UGA boundary, but rather the economics related to building type (in urban areas) and/or transportation cost (in rural areas)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  12. topdog

    I haven’t reviewed the paper yet, but the guy’s been published in the American Economic Review (the best econ journal), so he’s definitely legit.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  13. Ira Sacharoff

    I know that Seattle is regulation heavy, but that being the case, why are so many single family homes being torn down to make way for these danged zero lot line townhomes? Where were the land use regulations? Or is it simply that they’ll ultimately approve everything, but it’ll take a long time and the money extorted by the local government will be much higher?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  14. B&W Nikes

    Blame the government for meddling in our home prices causing astronomically inflated costs, I love it! Next up, blame the government for causing astronomic declines! A huge problem I see in how this report is being loosely interpreted by the times (and will be by the rest of regional media) is this: there is an assumption being made about when county-wide and city-wide density and growth patterns were optimal and that is a very subjective start point to measure from. It appears to me to occur at a sentimentally fixed point in time somewhere in the 1970s or 1980s when urban densities were at historical lows and suburban build was growing very fast. Associating gma’s and regulations too tightly with increasing costs or densities has as much of a problem as not associating federal transportation subsidies or the different costs of building in young communities versus infilling mature communities. Somewhat blithely providing another avenue for placing blame on save the salmon activists for half the cost of high housing really reeks of something other than ‘study’ to me.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  15. TJ_98370

    Check out Table 5 of Mr. Eicher’s report. According to that table, 88% of the price increase of Seattle homes from 1989 to 2006 was due to land use regulations and restrictions, 16% was due to increases in income and population, and 8% was due to population density. Another variable labeled “Autonomous Change” supposedly had a negative effect on house price increases of 15%. In other words, things like falling mortgage rates, relaxed lending practices, and changes in the cost of construction caused a relative decrease in housing prices in Seattle of 15%.

    Unless I am misunderstanding something, Mr. Eicher is completely disregarding the effect of speculation in the recent real estate market place. I also have a real hard time accepting his apparent assertion that lower mortgage rates and loose lending standards had the effect of lowering home prices in Seattle.

    At least Mr. Eicher’s study was not funded by NAR.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  16. TJ_98370

    Sorry Tim. I didn’t realize my comments on my previous post pretty much duplicated what you said above. Also, my comments were directed at his summary paper.

    Washington Housing Prices Summary

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  17. jon

    I haven’t read the study, but I have seen several times how regulations have a massive effect on cost of building. I think he is saying that if they all of a sudden allowed builders to do whatever they wanted, houses would be crammed into Seattle city and people wouldn’t have to commute to Issaquah. The increase in effective supply of land would drive the price in Seattle way down. So the large increase in the price of land in the last few years in Seattle is because the supply is constrained from increasing due to regulation. That then drives speculation. If zoning was removed, the speculation would go as a result, not as a cause. So the economist tallies that up under zoning regulations when others usually consider the zoning as a given and talk about the speculation that results.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  18. TJ_98370

    Sorry Tim. I didn’t realize my comments on my previous post pretty much duplicated what you said above. Also my comments were directed at his summary paper, Washington Housing Prices.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  19. Marc

    I’m all for smaller, less intrusive government and I can easily agree that Washington law stands squarely in the way of free use of property, but dang, this guy’s conclusions are hard to swallow. I have a hard time accepting his implicit (if not explicit) conclusion that had the UGA not been implemented and had property owners, instead, been let loose, they would have chosen to build so much new housing stock that they would have satiated all demand and ultimately driven the price down over a 17 year period. I would think there would have to be a point of diminishing return that would allow at least some positive appreciation over such a long period, even if only low single digit and even when adjusting for inflation.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  20. Scotsman

    Wow- so many errors and assumptions, so little time. What a farce.

    Observation is not the same as causality, correlation is not the same as causality

    For this to have any meaning, he would have to compare to several cities with similar demographics, economies, costs of living, etc. and then look at the differences in land use planning and regulation to extract any impact for those factors. This is just a lot of fancy mental ping-pong with a pre-determined outcome.

    Maybe he’s looking for a job with the NAR.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  21. geon

    200K…I call BS on the study.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  22. bigdollordog

    I guess I’m the only one here that agrees with Mr. Eicher, if some of you recall we had a post here on how Zoning effects home prices i made my own math, and came to a simalar conclusion, so Mr. Eicher must me reading this BLOG!! but I dont agree 100% with him but i would say land use reg. is the #1 factor, i tried to explain the whys on that older post a few months back so I wont try again now

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  23. incessant_din

    Junk science. The data on restrictiveness of regulations that Eicher references is a point, and not a trend. The data in “A New Measure of the Local Regulatory Environment for Housing Markets: The Wharton Residential Land Use Regulatory Index” is for a single point in time, i.e. 2006 or 2007, when the surveys were conducted. It says nothing about how a change in land use changes the costs. In other words, Eicher assumes that he has controlled for everything but regulation. Historic population centers, underlying employment, geographical and climactic factors are not excluded. If you took distance from seashore, for instance, you might find that that had something like $100K effect. The fact that being near a seashore restricts zoning would lump the two together. You could take political leaning, and then say, “if we just joined the XYZ party, we would increase property values.”

    Buffalo should restrict zoning. That will pump up prices. Detroit, Cleveland, Saint Louis should follow suit.

    Just my thoughts. Interesting concept, but misses a time correlation, which is necessary to make the leap that most readers make when interpreting the meaning of Eicher’s paper.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  24. incessant_din

    For proof of my hypothesis. find a table in any document that shows the wharton index for 2 or more points in time, let alone a table with 2 WRLURI points and two price points. Not there.

    In fact look at Table 1 in the following, he has two price measures in time, but no WRLURI:
    http://depts.washington.edu/teclass/landuse/Seattle.pdf

    Maybe I just need to see a table or chart to get it. And no, the statistical charts in these papers (that I have seen so far), are not addressing this.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  25. Jillayne Schlicke

    Instead of NAR, obvious funding support could have come from the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties.

    Would be interested in seeing if this group donated money to the University prior to the start of this study.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  26. SDtoSEA

    As a land use planner, all I can say is this study is a joke. The article even talks about a project in Seattle that has paid over $650k in permtis, land use fees, etc. That’s 25k per unit. And trust me, that’s much more accurate than his 90% figure.

    And the GMA has not forced greater density in Seattle. That density would have come no matter what due to a city of Seattle’s size reaching the buildout point.

    I can guarantee that land use regulations are not the main reason for the recent run up in prices. Without the recent 100% financing and pure speculation, land use issues would have contributed to a modest 5% or so appreciation.

    And how will he explain a substantial drop in median home price without any lessening of land use regulations?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  27. Scotsman

    Fair points, Tim- but I still call b.s. on the study. Think for a moment- $200k of the cost basis is due to regulation? I think he has come up with a clever cover for the fact that cities are naturally dense, the pricing competitive, and there being a premium for proximity or closeness.

    People place a premium on their time, and convert that into a cost that they try to minimize. If you live closer to work, shopping areas, etc. the cost of travel times is minimized, and more time/money/resources are available for other activities.
    Housing prices go up in urban areas because buyers put a premium on living closer to the core, and will spend as much as they can to live as close as they can.

    Land use regulations are akin to shuffling pieces around on a game board. They may push the pieces (home owners) one way or another, but their impact on price is insignificant compared to the number of pieces on the board, and the number of spaces.

    Detroit has plenty of land use regulations- and tons of cheap housing. Ellensburg is cheaper than Seattle because it’s a hour away, not because the land use regs are less restrictive.

    In fairness to the professor, he’s taken on a worthy project, but the subject is one that- despite his best attempts, can’t really be isolated to single factors. He would have been better off to calculate the percentage of cost that can be ascribed to taxes and fees, hard numbers that are easily quantified. But to claim that $200k is the result of land use regs is absurd, no matter how well wrapped and pretty the presentation is.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  28. whats my name

    “I know that Seattle is regulation heavy, but that being the case, why are so many single family homes being torn down to make way for these danged zero lot line townhomes? Where were the land use regulations? ”

    I thought you knew something about Seattle real estate. The ZLL townhomes were basicly designed by the city. There is a specific zoning overlay for them to increase density and act as a buffer between really high density and true SFR’s. That’s why the price of dumpy SFR’s in certain areas climbed so high – not as houses, but as multi unit building lots. The city is also happy to have nonfunctional garages as it will promote transit. And they are open about that fact. Its even been in the press (the last place usefull information shows up). Why do they look alike; because builders know that’s what the city wants, and it is very expensive to try for something else.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  29. S-Crow

    SD to SEA said,

    ” I can guarantee that land use regulations are not the main reason for the recent run up in prices. Without the recent 100% financing and pure speculation, land use issues would have contributed to a modest 5% or so appreciation.”

    I couldn’t agree more.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  30. george

    Property is cheaper in cities where there’s a lot of crime and pollution too. Red tape sucks, but this study sounds pretty lame.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  31. Alan

    I don’t think he is claiming that land use regulation is the only cause for that 200k run up. He is claiming that if all other situations are identical (which accounts for increases in demand due to cheap money and speculation) that regulation will cause prices to be higher.

    At least, I think that is what he is saying.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  32. Everett Buyer

    I did not review the researchers work, but did read the Seattle Times article by Seattle Times business reporter Elizabeth Rhodes, (Elizabeth Rhodes, Seattle Times, 02.14.2008) ) which I believe is more relevant since articles like it will more likely be read by Seattle area residents, as apposed to the detailed work by the researcher. It appears to me that there is some kind of math error with the article. Please hang in here for my explanation below.

    From the following excerpt from the Seattle Times article:

    “Between 1989 and 2006, the median inflation-adjusted price of a Seattle house rose from $221,000 to $447,800. Fully $200,000 of that increase was the result of land-use regulations, says Theo Eicher — twice the financial impact that regulation has had on other major U.S. cities.”

    Here is the math error that struck me the most:

    If $200,000 of the increase over the 17 year period (2006 – 1989) that is reported as fully due to land-use regulations is subtracted from the 2006 year $447,800 value, then the difference from the resulting value and the 1989 year value would have to be due to all other factors that influenced the price of a Seattle house over that period. The math would go like this: $447,800 – $200,000 = $247,800; and $247,800 – $221,000 = $26,800, which would be the amount of the increase due to all other factors that influenced the price of a Seattle house over that period. Problem is that when you just conservatively consider that on average a house in Seattle is re-sold every five years, and that the Seattle Realtor/broker commissions have been at least 5% per re-sale over that period, the increase in price required from that factor alone – just to pay the Realtors/brokers – would be more than $26,800. The math goes like this, (all done in inflation-adjusted $), for a 5% commission applied 3.4 times over the 17 years (3.4 five year periods in 17 years): ($221,000) x (1.05)^3.4 = $260,877; and $260,877 – $221,000 = $39,877 which is more than $26,800. So unless houses in Seattle have been on average re-selling less often than every five years – I think not – or if Seattle Realtor/broker commissions have been less than %5 per re-sale over that period – again I think not, then something is wrong with the math result presented in the Seattle Times article.

    I would not attempt to dispute that land-use regulations are a factor that likely cause a positive increase in the price of a house in Seattle. However when an article like this one in the Seattle Times is published with a math error/disconnect as I have identified, it puts the whole article in question, and also elicits questions about the credibility of the newspaper, and the motive, and the timing of the article. Unfortunately for the Seattle area real estate consumer – these kinds of articles and questions are not new news to us!. My opinion is that this Seattle Times article is just another attempt by the old school real estate industry establishment to justify unrealistically high run-up bubble prices and their attendant fat sales commissions, at the expense of the consumer – by blaming it on something else – government land-use regulations rules. Boy what a nice target for everyone to concentrate on blaming…and not focus of other factors for the bubble prices. Well read my lips old school real estate industry establishment. I’M NOT BUYING IT !! Thank you for reading this comment. Look forward to seeing some responses to it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  33. Denny Retrograde

    Great post, Tim. You were right on top of it! Erica Barnett just did a lovely post on Slog linking to Sightline’s outraged, three-part debunking as well. It’s cracking good reading.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  34. B&W Nikes

    OK just for clarification… in the interest of helping a guy off the ropes, Tim is sort of defending a study that he doesn’t hold much faith in because it is getting slammed so hard from all corners as being something less than honest with itself about it’s motivations? Wow. Band aid?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  35. greenthum

    Last year the real estate industry ran a series of ads on television complaining about Washington State and King County’s restrictive land use regulations and how it was interfering with their ability to provide the public with affordable housing. They encouraged us to contact our elected representatives in Olympia and try to get these regulations changed.

    For years the real estate industry has been trying to eliminate any and all regulations on development and now with professor Eicher study they have the proof they need to change some minds in Olympia. The whole thing smells if you ask me.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  36. Garth

    I took this to be his thesis:

    Often-cited reasons for the spectacular run up of US housing prices in the past 10-20 years include lower mortgage rates, creative mortgages, and income/employment growth. These factors, which may well contribute to increased housing prices, all relate exclusively to housing demand. Housing supply factors, however, are harder to quantify and are typified by opposing view points: environment vs. sprawl, builders vs. planners, parks vs. high-rises, and (most divisively) state vs. local growth management.

    The data and methodology is some of the best real estate research I have seen.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  37. Alan

    I agree, Garth. Notice that no where in that thesis does it claim that demand considerations have no effect on price run-ups. Somewhere else it says that data on government regulation has been difficult to gather. This seems to be one of the first (if not the first) study looking at how supply is affected by regulation.

    I think it will be interesting to see how regulation affects prices with respect to historical means after a bubble pops. I suspect we would find the non-regulated areas were overbuilt and have lower than historial prices.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  38. economist

    Really all you have to do to refute this claim is to look at Florida. Practically non-existent regulation, yet far greater % runups than Seattle. Ditto the other super bubble areas like Phoenix, LV, CA Inland Empire and Central Valley. How obvious can you get?

    What regulation does is decrease the elasticity of supply. This is precisely why the areas I mentioned led the RE crash – the supply was able to respond very quickly to the elevated prices. In more regulated areas the supply will grow less quickly. But grow it will.

    RE prices cannot exceed historical price/income and price/rent in the long run, not matter what restrictions are in place on development.

    And I’ll just finish with an easy shot – Japan has far more restrictions on development then you could ever dream of, and that did not prevent a 50% crash. It just happened more slowly.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  39. george

    So…the take home message is that factors like lower interest rates and lax lending rules played a minor role in the (international) housing bubble? Parks are the problem?

    Sounds like all the FED needs to do is let every last park be developed, and we can avoid recession?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  40. laxtosnoco

    The full study is well thought out and explained. It’s hard to argue with his regression model–lots of variables considered, tested, and explained.

    The fundamental problem I have is his assumption that it is possible to build a model to explain price behavior in <20 years of a real estate market when most of the price change have taken place in the last 3-4 years. I don’t see any mention of him testing the model over different time periods. I suspect he would find a much different result if he ran a 5 year model instead of a 20 year one.

    Overall, the study seems to simply ignore the huge run-up in prices over the last few years while land use policies haven’t changed much.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  41. Ken Mott

    I guess this group still thinks the party is going on here. He missed it by a couple years.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004183558_bizbriefs15.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  42. TJ_98370

    Alan said:

    I agree, Garth. Notice that no where in that thesis does it claim that demand considerations have no effect on price run-ups…….

    I had the exact same thought. He appears to disregard demand as having any effect on prices. I really do not understand how his analysis can be accurate by just focusing on the supply side. Maybe I am missing something?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  43. TJ_98370

    Clarification of my previous post, I meant to say:

    He appears to disregard recent speculative demand as having any effect on prices. I really do not understand how his analysis can be accurate by just focusing on the supply side.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  44. softwarengineer

    DEPOPULATION ISN’T THE “F” WORD

    Over crowding in Seattle has been a problem since 1970, we were out of usable land by then. Now its off the Richtor Scale. Try getting through the I-5 [built in like 1960] through downtown Seattle at say, 730AM….lol….gridlock!

    We can’t paper weasle our way out of this, nor can we afford mass transit [remember Proposition 1] , let along have land for it either, etc, etc

    The answer, its depopulation. Its not the “F” word either. Think of the example Seattle would set for the global community emphasizing depopulation. Think of the example we set continuing on this path of denial.

    See the proof:

    http://www.populationconnection.org/Communications/Reporter/Fall2003/sprawl.pdf

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  45. bigdollordog

    TJ98370 said:

    “He appears to disregard demand as having any effect on prices. I really do not understand how his analysis can be accurate by just focusing on the supply side. Maybe I am missing something?”

    yes here is what you are missing very easy to understand:

    LAND USE REGULATIONS = RESTRICT SUPPLY, = REDUCED SUPPLY = INCREASES DEMAND = we all know what increased demand does

    DONE

    also economis said “Really all you have to do to refute this claim is to look at Florida. Practically non-existent regulation, yet far greater % runups than Seattle. Ditto the other super bubble areas like Phoenix, LV, CA Inland Empire and Central Valley. How obvious can you get?

    ???huh???? don’t this help support Mr. Eicher study

    NO LANDUSE REGS. = OVERSUPPLY, = LESS DEMAND = LOWER PRICES

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  46. Matthew

    BigDollarDog,

    Repeat after me:

    SPECULATORS, SPECULATORS, SPECULATORS.

    That’s the difference between the areas you named and Seattle, the # of speculators in the market, not land regulations. Both LA and San Fran have land use regulations and they are the most bubbly areas in the country.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  47. deejayoh

    REDUCED SUPPLY = INCREASES DEMAND

    um, nope. Supply and demand are independent variables.

    I think you are implying is that regulation reduces supply and given constant or increasing demand, prices go up. Econ 101

    The only problem with that is the fact that the housing stock in King County has grown faster than the population since 2000. So demand has been DOWN relative to SUPPLY. We all know what sposta happen then, don’t we?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  48. david losh

    What’s my name, comment #30, is very correct. The prices for dumpy properties on prime building lots sell for higher than actual market value so we saw a huge increase in median home pricing.
    This study has been going on for years and is dribbled out by the Master Bulders Association as a reason to build on farm land and in wet lands. The reality is that one day, maybe very soon, some one will wake up and ask why they paid a half a million dollars for a ZZL town house in Ballard that cost two hundred thousand dollars to build.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  49. TJ_98370

    bigdollordog –

    The post of mine that you referenced was clumsily written. What I was attempting to say was that Mr. Eicher appears to believe that recent speculative demand had insignificant influence on real estate prices because he makes no mention of it, that I can find. The major point of his paper is that he apparently believes the largest influencing factor for increasing real estate prices is land use regulation (reduced supply) and most of his paper is dedicated to supporting that assertion. To me, his paper lacks balance because he does not address factors like speculative demand and he only made cursory mention of other influencing factors such as relaxed lending standards and low interest rates.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  50. Alan

    What I was attempting to say was that Mr. Eicher appears to believe that recent speculative demand had insignificant influence on real estate prices because he makes no mention of it, that I can find.

    Maybe regulation causes more speculation. He doesn’t care. All he says is that regulated markets have higher prices. He doesn’t really make a claim on why that happens (except to say that it reduces supply).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  51. AMS

    @The Tim-

    “It would seem to me that changes in mortgage rates (much lower in 2006 than 1989), lending procedures (much looser in 2006 than 1989) and mortgage market liquidity (much greater in 2006 than 1989) would have a pretty large positive effect on home prices, not a negative one.”

    When I had a house built, part of my cost was the interest expense on the money borrowed during construction. If the rates at the time would have been lower, my interest expense would have been less, not more. I would guess that the same holds for lending procedures and market liquidity–both these reduce the cost, not increase it. I am not sure how my cost of construction would have increased by lower interest rates, independent of some other factor. I would have loved the bank if they would have lent me the money for free!!!

    Could you elaborate on your claim of how lower interest rates might have increased my construction cost?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  52. TJ_98370

    ….I am not sure how my cost of construction would have increased by lower interest rates, independent of some other factor…..
    .
    If you subscribe to the theory that people buy at the maximum level of what they think they can afford, or that people do not care what the overall price is as long as they can make the monthly payment, lower interest rates will result in upward pressure on prices.

    Lesson 1 in Marketing 101 is that prices are dictated by what the market will bear. Cost associated with fabrication of the product is not the dominating factor when determining price.
    .

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  53. Alan

    Could you elaborate on your claim of how lower interest rates might have increased my construction cost?

    I believe that when Tim says “positive effect on home prices” he means lower prices.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  54. Regulations “unlikely to contribute more than 17%” of home price | Seattle Bubble — News & discussion about real estate & the housing bubble in the Seattle area.

    [...] at Seattle Bubble we had serious questions about the dramatic conclusion in that study, and the methods that led to that conclusion: …my [...]

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply

Do you want a nifty avatar picture next to your name, instead of a photograph of Tim's dog? Just sign up with Gravatar, and make sure to use the same email address in the form below. It's that easy!

Please read the rules before posting a comment.

You have 4 comments remaining on this post.

Archives

Find us on Google+