Is there a housing shortage or not?

https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/is-there-a-housing-shortage-or-not

by telotortium • 4 years ago

107 208 4 years ago

constructionphysics.substack.com

Well written and researched. Its not about how many houses are available but how many are available where people want to be ... theres plenty of empty houses in Detroit, etc. I appreciate how this points out that areas that cant support more housing, or are already very desirable, fall into the group of 'they must need more houses'.

onionisafruit5• 4 years ago

It’s because people are no longer content with living where they are from. We all prefer to live in the very best city until it isn’t the very best city anymore because everybody moved there.

majormajor3• 4 years ago

I've seen various reports that the reverse is true, people are moving away from their family less than in the past, although I'm struggling to find the right search terms ("migration" is flooded with immigration results; "mobility" is turning up economic stuff...). Compare today with a century ago: how many places went from "barely on the map" to "huge metropolis" in the USA since then? How many look poised to do the same over the next century?

And I think when they are moving, they're similarly not moving to as "new" or "small" destinations - e.g. tons of sunbelt towns saw very rapid growth from young adults moving there in the 60s-90s. But many of those towns are still the ones seeing a lot of growth; anecdotally, my parents moved to Dallas after college. Where's the "new Dallas"? The cheaper towns with jobs that are being promoted are still the same ones as fifty years ago, and they're not nearly as cheap as they were then anymore. Combine that with rising population from immigration + the kids who grew up there and didn't move away, and you see a lot of cost inflation.

Johnny555• 4 years ago

We all prefer to live in the very best city until it isn’t the very best city anymore because everybody moved there.

Well, it was the best city until just after I moved there, then it became untenable and people should stop moving there.

bigDinosaur2• 4 years ago

A good city should be able to withstand people moving there. Otherwise it was probably only good for reasons that aren't actually inherently city qualities, such as culture or access to nature or cheap land.

brigade• 4 years ago

If by "best" you mean "more job opportunities." That's always been true, and earlier migrants always hate the later migrants.

At most, you could say that the preference of living in the city vs. its suburbs flipped compared to 20 years ago, which had previously flipped when cars made suburbs commutable.

Ericson23145• 4 years ago

until it isn’t the very best city anymore because everybody moved there.

Wat. Cities are not parties that get diluted with lame people.

London and Paris grew large and rich in comparison to their respective countries.

To the extent there is an equilibrium at play, it is a power law. There is no rotating most popular city, not withstanding what people think about San Francisco. Density wins, and the winners keep on winning absent some sort of disaster.

I'm sorry, but this seems like a classic example of pulling out some Hobbesian cynicism as a calling card for classy sober thinking...but in this case it's dead wrong.

nerfhammer2• 4 years ago

On the contrary, labor mobility has declined precipitously since WWII, and this is a bad thing because it means people can't move to where there is a better job for them

paxys• 4 years ago

"This city used to be perfect but now there are too many people here ruining it" – said by every resident of every city in every civilization in the world at any given point in their history.

asdff7• 4 years ago

IMO looking at it as want to be somewhere is a bit simplistic. Ultimately there are that many people in pricey places because they are working jobs that can support them there. Sure half of boston can go to detroit and find lower prices, but will there be jobs available to them in detroit? and once there are jobs available to them at this talent level (given the high professional degrees per capita in boston), who is to say prices don't also rise in response if detroit fails to build housing in response to the increase in population driven by this job growth? Building housing in desirable areas is not to just keep piling people there, its to house labor where the growing economic activity is in demand for housing for labor.

coward1232• 4 years ago

Solid analysis. If I might add some factors about my particular market that might be similar to other people's markets that I believe confound the issues:

-- Builders are not building the kind of properties that buyers want. In my market these are suburban tract housing generally at a sub-$500K price point with low-end construction materials and finishes. Thus, buyers say "there's nothing to buy" because they aren't the kind of houses they want. They end up buying them anyway because it's all they can afford and/or other factors like proximity to work or family. But, looking at days on market, etc, relative to other properties, it's pretty clear buyers of these homes are acting more out of desperation.

-- Obsolescence. We have a lot of (older) houses in our area that are simply not conducive to modern living and until someone is able to do major overhauls, they will always be less desirable. Think tiny parlor rooms, bedrooms that barely fit a double bed, kitchens closed off from the rest of the house, single bathrooms, etc.

-- Non-turn key properties. My market is such that many local buyers live paycheck to paycheck and will not be able to afford renovations of any kind. Thus, the people buying non-turnkey properties are our out of area newcomers (of which there are many) but these buyers are such that they tend to want more amenities than our existing housing stock can provide. So basically anything not turnkey is sitting longer even in a competitive market.

So my point in all of the above is to say that in some markets, I believe there is more inventory than believed, but because it is not in line with market expectations you end up with the general public believing there are limited opportunities.

lotsofpulp2• 4 years ago

In my market these are suburban tract housing generally at a sub-$500K price point with low-end construction materials and finishes. Thus, buyers say "there's nothing to buy" because they aren't the kind of houses they want.

There is something to buy, but there is nothing to buy at the price buyers want to pay. Developers can get away with less expensive finishes because they know demand is still so high relative to supply that the houses will still be sold.

coward1232• 4 years ago

I'd actually be ok with them using less expensive finishes so long as the houses themselves were built to last more than 20 years... there's a house I drive past regularly in a development where it's obvious that the sheet siding wasn't even put up square. I mean - what do the studs, the foundation, the insulation, etc in that house look like if they couldn't even get the seams on the siding to hang correctly? The finishers all get swapped out every 5-15 years as fads change, and they are the easiest things for homeowners to do themselves (IE: a little Home Depot style remodel). But, it gets a lot harder to fix things in the walls that weren't done correctly from the beginning.

nradov3• 4 years ago

Builders will always build the most profitable projects that they can. In many desirable areas the construction cost is a relatively small part of the cost after purchasing the land and obtaining permits. Thus it makes sense to build with high-end construction materials and finishes. Even if that prices out many lower-income buyers, there are still plenty of affluent buyers to snap up the units.

As for "non-turn key properties", whatever happened to living in a shithole for a few years and saving your money until you can afford to renovate?

datavirtue• 4 years ago

"whatever happened to living in a shithole for a few years"

Mom. I have wanted to buy land with a shitty trailer for years so that I can live there and build with cash. Wife thinks I'm nuts. I'm addicted to building things out of nothing though, affluency bores me.

danaris2• 4 years ago

whatever happened to living in a shithole for a few years

In other words, "I had to suffer (or grew up with an expectation that many people had to suffer) this way, so no one else gets to complain about having to suffer this way, even if it's very possible to eliminate this kind of pointless suffering from the system."

iggldiggl• 4 years ago

simply not conducive to modern living [...] kitchens closed off from the rest of the house

I still cannot understand that trend, to be honest. Cooking generates smells, sometimes greasy fumes, and especially in summer unwanted heat, and I don't see why I need to purposely dump all those throughout the rest of the house.

humaniania• 4 years ago

How many houses are AirBNBs and similar?

missedthecue• 4 years ago

The US has 660,000 Airbnb listings, but of course, not all of them are 'entire place' rentals. A lot of spare rooms and guest-houses.

imperfect_light• 4 years ago

I live in Seattle, one of the hottest housing markets in the country. If I go to Airbnb and select "seattle" "entire place" "house" and "flexible" it comes up with 836 options. SF had roughly the same 700-800 (and a few from the larger bay area bled in).

That doesn't seem very significant in cities of roughly 750K/875K (within city limits of Seattle and SF respectively)

jsiaajdsdaa3• 4 years ago

There is a shortage of good housing. Humans are not meant to live in 100 year old rat trap paper thin apartments.

batshit_beaver• 4 years ago

Tell that to the Europeans.

Unless we invent the ability to build single family homes into the 4th dimension, there is no physical way to build enough houses in good locations for everyone. And we can support only a certain amount of horizontal expansion, because eventually the cost of infrastructure and services becomes economically infeasible.

nradov3• 4 years ago

There are lots of good locations. Some people are just too picky. There's nothing wrong with living in Nashville or Cleveland. It's stupid to keep cramming more and more people into a few coastal cities.

lokar• 4 years ago

Or the majority of all humans who ever lived

asdff7• 4 years ago

The europeans can't hear you though the walls of their stone apartments.

jsiaajdsdaa3• 4 years ago

A dirt road is not very complicated to make, even the Romans who resided in the continent you mentioned were able to do a bit better than that.

Why does every city need to be a vertical one connected by state of the art high speed rail?

Those who want to live in the cities with their apartments are more than welcome to. Those who don't shouldn't be limited by some policies made by cityfolk.

s1mon• 4 years ago

The comparison between the Bay Area and Atlanta is interesting. “There is essentially zero correlation - the metros with the largest rent increases had added population / added housing ratios no different than metros with smaller rent increases.”

What this seems to be leaving out is the lack of much of an escape valve in the Bay Area. Where there’s density, there could be more - with zoning changes and years of red tape. Where there’s little density, geography is against much of anything. You have serious hills/mountains, the bay and the ocean dividing things up. Where there’s land with little or no housing, there’s no drinking water and/or regulations against building and/or those areas aren’t very well connected.

Atlanta seems to be one gigantic sprawl that steadily transitions from relatively low density urban to suburban. If you can’t afford/find housing in the metro proper, just go a few miles further out.

ceeplusplus• 4 years ago

Half the peninsula is forests and grass fields with nothing there. You can't be serious? There's huge NIMBYism preventing those areas from being developed.

tjr2252• 4 years ago

Nothing but pristine natural beauty? Did you think this comment through?

stevenwoo• 4 years ago

Someone owns that open space land. It cannot be developed unless one buys out the owners like San Francisco Water District (most of the open space visible on 280 for a long stretch is Crystal Springs Reservoir and the drainage into it even though a lot of the water comes from far away like Hetchy Hetch.) or the Mid Peninsula Open Space District or Santa Clara Water District (several large reservoirs and the drainage into them are only for recharging the underwater aquifers - if one builds over it, the reservoirs do not recharge and subsidence will be much worse like the Central Valley) or park land. The NIMBYism is people preventing high density development in places like Palo Alto.

asdff7• 4 years ago

IMO why is the author leaving out the elephant in the room which is jobs? Who rents these apartments that go higher and higher in SF? people with jobs who can afford them. All of it is dependent on jobs. Prices are as high as what the wages of the local job market may bear. If houses cost a lot, its because there are a lot of high earners in the local economy buying them and affording to put in offers at these prices. Likewise with rent.

When you compare these metros and see similar growth but dramatically different prices, it does seem perplexing, until you consider the jobs. Median income is twice as high in SF than atlanta. That means there are more workers who are paid high enough wages to afford higher rents in SF, and landlords are pricing accordingly. In Atlanta there are fewer of these workers, and at a certain point it becomes difficult to price an apartment so high and still pull in prospective tenants as quickly as you'd like. As atlanta adds more high income jobs and fewer units of housing though, expect prices to rise in response and the low income workers more commonly pushed to the fringes or on top of eachother in overcrowded conditions.

LegionMammal978• 4 years ago

The last big section of the article is dedicated specifically to this idea:

But there are other economic relationships that might have similar effects. One of these is income level - as incomes rise, demand curves shift to the right, which (all else being equal) should also cause an increase in prices. So we should expect an increase in housing prices to be partly driven by rising incomes, especially when the supply is fairly inelastic (as it is for housing.)

closeparen• 4 years ago

Is population growth a good measure of demand? You can’t show up in the local census unless you actually land a place to live. The priced-out cohort seems relevant.

Meanwhile fertility among the adult incumbents does raise the population, even though those children won’t demand housing units for at least 18 years.

Maybe San Francisco has added a bunch of professionals living like college students while Atlanta has added a bunch of actual babies.

TimPC17• 4 years ago

Georgists have known for a long time about the tendency for land prices to rise in a way that captures a sizeable percentage of the gains of labour (income). This tax on productivity is best solved through a land value tax.

teakettle4227• 4 years ago

I already think property taxes are immoral, in that they tax unrealized value in perpetuity.

I’m paying $2k more in property taxes this year because a bunch of very wealthy out-of-state home owners have decided they want to live here, and have driven up prices to an extreme.

I’m not going to be convinced that I should be ruinously taxed on the unrealized value of my land in order to force me to develop it according to the whims of whatever entity we entrust to socially engineer land-use.

melissalobos• 4 years ago

I should be ruinously taxed

I don't know where you are getting that it would be a ruinous tax. It should also be offset by not having other types of taxes in a pure Georgian system.

atdrummond• 4 years ago

Why do you think land taxes would be ruinous? The only single family home owners who would see major tax increases are those in markets like the Bay Area - many of whom are already paying well below what they would nearly anywhere else in the country due to their legislatively capped house value.

I also find the morality argument interesting, as land has some unique attributes as an economic good that one could use to make very convincing arguments for the immorality of land ownership itself.

xvedejas4• 4 years ago

But surely we can deduce that property taxes are _more_ immoral than a land value tax. With both, you do have to pay more when the wealthy decide your area is valuable. (Leave aside for the moment the argument that some Georgists will argue this is less likely in a world with LVT). But only with property tax are you taxed _more_ when you spend your own money to improve your own property. Property tax directly disincentivizes making the most of your own land, because it taxes the improvements to it.

Land Value Tax is like taking property tax and removing the worst element of it. At least personally I think it moves the needle from "a very bad idea" to more in the realm of a necessary evil.

diebeforei4852• 4 years ago

Property taxes help pay for local services. As housing costs go up, so too do expenses faced by governments and contractors.

pm902• 4 years ago

You don’t own the land you live on in perpetuity. It seems like your neighborhood is undergoing gentrification; time to move to a more affordable neighborhood.

BirdieNZ3• 4 years ago

have driven up prices to an extreme.

So your land, through no effort of your own, has hugely gone up in value; don't you think there's something wrong with you benefiting from other people's labour that increased the value of your land?

handmodel3• 4 years ago

I used to have this view. But I think in practice not taxing wealth (property) and taxing contributions to producing things of value (income) is bad. And especially in 2022 with how easy it is to borrow money based on your property not taxing it is especially bad for society.

Look at California. Everyone who bought here 40 years ago is super well off while those who moved more recently and are contributing a lot still can't get stability.

I realize property taxes go to plenty of local government ventures - but presumably the US government (and state government) does quite a bit to protect your property from outside forces and local thieves. It makes sense that the more value in property you have the more you should pay to protect that.

mrDmrTmrJ• 4 years ago

Do you think town services are immoral? If police, fire-dept., water, roads, and schools are not immoral - how do you propose to pay for them? Or do you wish to experience a "true property value" without those services?

What's more immoral: Property taxes or zoning that prevents other people from building what they want on their own property? It's not the increased demand for homes that drives increases in prices, and hence property taxes, it's the prohibitions on new construction. Surely those are immoral too!

afpx• 4 years ago

I think most people are against taxes. Let's get rid of them already.

double_nan3• 4 years ago

Another angle to look at property taxes might be private property rights. From some point of view real estate taxes are a way to deny these rights by forcing owners to pay rent for the right to use the property.

tdaltonc• 4 years ago

I think it would be immoral for land property rights to operate in the way you want them to. Property rights for copyright, tractors, land, etc all work differently so there's no obvious "most ethical" way to manage property rights. This legal property rights are usually different for good reasons. The Real Estate rights bundle, for example, is a kind of monopoly. I think it's ethical that that bundle of rights should come with an obligation to pay a kind of rent to society for that monopoly for the same reason that the right to own a slice of radio frequency spectrum comes with a rent to society. A good method for determining the relative size of that rent (in both cases) is based on its market value (ie in proportion to the value that other members of society place on that monopoly).

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bundle-of-rights.asp

pydry3• 4 years ago

So you also think jacking up rent is immoral?

If lots of people want something I occupy but I didnt create or make valuable why should I not have to pay society for that privilege?

haihaibye• 4 years ago

My wages were driven up by wealthy employers hiring other programmers for jobs I didn't want or ask for - it's immoral to tax my increased income.

TimPC17• 4 years ago

In order for property taxes to be moral we have to ask what land is and what land does. Land is an economic good that is unlike any other. It captures the value of other people’s work just by existing. As the amount of income in a neighborhood goes up the land value goes up even if no one improves everything.

So there are substantial questions on why you are entitled to 100% of these gains you didn’t create. Short of libertarianism you’re not going to have a moral basis for a property right strong enough to justify it. And libertarianism is a terrible morass of bad philosophical ideas that don’t work.

lovich4• 4 years ago

With the use of the term “out-of-state” I am assuming you are American, and that means you don’t own land. No one in the country owns land. You own a title to rent exclusive use of the land from the government and property taxes are the rent on that.

Being allowed to sit on unrealized value from the land, deny its use to all others in society, _and_ not pay taxes on it seems like the immoral situation to me

michaelbrave• 4 years ago

This may sound extreme, and I don't quite believe it, but I'm thinking on it. But the long and short of it is that I'm not even sure we should allow for the ownership of land. Going back far enough all land was stolen (central park, anything dealing with first peoples) or conned from someone, some war determined it, it was sold and sold again. The only two arguments of justification are 1. they were conquered so it's done (basically might makes right) or 2. it was so long ago that we shouldn't worry about it, and that wasn't me specifically.

Besides if Climate Change ends up half as bad as I think it will, some areas will need to designated as "no farm zones" or "no more people zones", some towns will need to be closed and maybe turned back into wilderness. The problems are already there, like California having a 20 year drought and importing most of it's water, at what point do you say "this is the new normal and we need to plan as such" because we continue to grow water heavy crops like pistachios in California when over 20 years tells us we shouldn't. But protection of ownership of a thing that probably shouldn't be owned will halt any effective amounts of change to be able to happen.

I'm not even entirely sure what I'm trying to say as I've not thought it out, but just recognize that we have these assumptions about things that maybe aren't or shouldn't be true.

s1artibartfast4• 4 years ago

One issue with georgism is that it significantly penalizes Urbanization and productivity that goes with it. People are incentivized to spread out and live on less costly land and take a hit to their income or less lucrative jobs.

You would have Urban workers paying most of their income and taxes, and remote white collar workers paying essentially zero taxes.

xvedejas4• 4 years ago

This is maybe true for the landowner, but it's much less true for the renter. Since land is more available (due to fewer underproductive uses), you can expect more competition to put renters in land efficient configurations (high rises) in the densest cities. Sounds like urbanization to me? And more affordable than the status quo.

TimPC17• 4 years ago

Georgism lowers the cost of achieving density and removes subsidies paid from cities to suburbs and rural areas from the tax system. In exchange for that, some variations of the system which offer a citizen’s dividend make it possible to subsist on rural land due to its low tax value. Doing so results in significant wage losses for the vast majority of the populace so it’s unclear how popular such a strategy would be.

pessimizer• 4 years ago

Maybe, but my problem with the land tax is that the rich just wouldn't own any land. Especially in the age of gig work "independent contractors" I can imagine people who work somewhere being forced to commit a part of their salary to supplying their own workplace. Rents and mortgages are essentially the same thing.

kurupt213• 4 years ago

Property taxes are a downward pressure on home prices

imtringued9• 4 years ago

Agreed. The question of whether the build or its location should be taxed is at the hear of the property Vs land value tax. For some reason people think that they are dedicated eviction tools while completely ignoring that they are meant to align economic incentives with human desires. There is no need to have extremely high taxes, just don't keep them laughably low.

readthenotes1• 4 years ago

Just talked with someone in the concrete business.

There is a national shortage of Portland cement (imports restricted, new plants regulated out) and high quality flyash (these people got it from a place that used to ash from coal burning).

That can't help house prices...

usrn2• 4 years ago

This is the result of the way we've been lending money. Before 2008 you could easily get a loan for constructing new houses so many people did. Now new families can only get a loan for existing houses, this necessarily constrained supply and I would argue is the primary driver in the housing crunch.

Bring back land loans and the problem will solve itself.

asdff7• 4 years ago

A lot of areas are already built out and there's nothing left for greenfield single family home development. Zoning needs to be fixed before building can even happen. There is plenty of demand and money ready for development.

usrn2• 4 years ago

The US really is mostly empty and zoning is the way it is because the infrastructure needs to be upgraded first.

DoreenMichele5• 4 years ago

For instance, consider a simplified model where every family has two kids that live with them until they’re 18.

The ACA (Obamacare) extended coverage to age 26 for children because about half of young adults up to age 26 were living with their parents

Since WW2, we've torn down about a million SROs.* We have also largely zoned out of existence the ability to build new Missing Middle housing.

We have a dire shortage of a certain kind of housing: small, inexpensive housing near amenities. This is true nationwide.

* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy#:~:tex....

isx726552• 4 years ago

Boarding houses need to make a comeback.

ruined• 4 years ago

They have, informally. There is a huge demographic of people in every major city who have never/rarely signed a lease, but simply sublet a room from an official lease-holder, often against the actual terms of the lease.

These people generally tend to file taxes as individual households, despite all sharing what is statistically a single unit of housing. I wonder how this plays with the data in the article.

pkdpic• 4 years ago

Thats a really interesting thought. I would guess there're are a lot of untapped ideas from the early 20th / 19th century that deserve reevaluation / resurrection. Like drinking more. I'm experimenting with that one. I'll let everyone know how it turns out on substack when I'm done.

skybrian3• 4 years ago

The "household size" in that article is trending down, which suggests that, if more young adults are living with their parents, it's counterbalanced by more people in other age groups living alone?

DoreenMichele5• 4 years ago

People are delaying marriage and iirc more people are foregoing it entirely. People are having children later and having fewer children and living longer, so there are more empty-nesters. Empty-nesters may be a couple or single adult whose spouse has died.

There has been a decline in households with four or more people and a rise in households with one to three people, but our housing stock tends to be geared towards nuclear families with a breadwinner father, homemaker mother and 2.5 children.

Last I checked, average new homes post-2000 were more than twice the size of new homes in the 1950s and held one less person on average. So you are seeing couples with one child buy four bedroom homes and turn the extra bedrooms into an office and a playroom or hobby space.

Meanwhile, the poorest of the poor are often unable to find housing at all. We have a lot of homeless people.

scarface743• 4 years ago

How do you have inexpensive housing near desired amenities? The people that need affordable housing will always be outbid by people with more money.

sagarm• 4 years ago

Allow construction of undesirable housing, like SROs.

countvonbalzac• 4 years ago

Isn't land use restriction just a proxy for added housing, so with population growth being equal isn't it a proxy for the added population / added housing ratio?

hn_throwaway_99• 4 years ago

I thought this was a great article, but one thing that I think was missing was an analysis of how rural vs. urban/suburban desirability has greatly changed housing demand.

In the past 20-30 years, there has been a huge concentration of wealth in major metros, and many rural areas have been "hollowed out", with most young people looking to "get out" if they can. Some of this is anecdotal, but is also supported by various data sets. Even during the pandemic, where many folks left the cities and went to other areas, it was still that a lot of "tier 2" metros (think Boise, Charlotte, etc.) that took the influx.

So my concern is that even if there are the same number of houses in the US nationwide, many of those houses have become completely undesirable as people move to areas with opportunity. Just think of all the boarded up $1 houses in Detroit, for example.

Just think it would be interesting to see how much "low valued" housing there is (i.e. housing that has lost value or been stagnant) to calculate how much concentration of housing demand has been going on.

asdff7• 4 years ago

Looking at things nationally is a little unclear imo. Locally the shortage is evident. In LA county back in the 1960s when prices were very affordable, the area was zoned for a population of 10 million people. Today after rezoning decades ago, its zoned for about half that, and nearly completely built out, and what do you know prices are high as a result. Capacity was available then it became scarce and prices rose.

yobbo• 4 years ago

In the graph: "Housing Units in the United States", one should point out that number of "Housing Units" is an upper bound on number of "Households".

A gap between "Housing Units" and "Households" indicates some slack. When these two curves coincides, everyone is buying at the margin.

rufus_foreman• 4 years ago

What is it that people say here when there's an article that claims there is a shortage of labor?

Raise wages (the price of labor) and the shortage will go away. Why doesn't the same principle apply here? We can just raise housing prices and the shortage will go away.

sam-s• 4 years ago

I am surprised no one mentions the elephant in the room - rent control.

It makes it harder to discover the true rent (one has to pay a large lump sum to the previous tenant to get a rent-controlled apartment) and it discourages rental housing construction.

Do you really think that these effects are best observable indirectly, as rent and construction?!

wildrhythms2• 4 years ago

Why is your solution to abolish rent control rather than propose a public housing solution?

robocat• 4 years ago

One misconception in the article is that lots of people would like two houses, for example vacation homes, or work and weekend homes.

They say "At the extreme end, you can’t have more households than there are people", which I think is incorrect thinking.

It really matters when looking at houses getting built, because if those houses are holiday homes, then most analysts really screw up their analyses because the averages look like they improve, but actually the majority of people have no improvement.

Is there a housing shortage or not?

Related Stories