So, if houses were to become investments on a massive scale, and -- as seems inevitable -- they ended up in the hands of only a few, does that change the politics of housing supply?
Before, your neighborhood's voters were homeowners who benefit from rising property values; after, they're renters who benefit from falling rents.
I've heard that Germany has more of this renting situation but no idea about the politics of housing supply over there.
Renters are so much less likely to be voters that this has little impact.
In Seattle, for instance, municipal elections are on odd-numbered years. As a result, get out the vote operations that tend to increase renter turnout during presidential elections don’t have much impact on local elections.
We had a vote in the 90s that reduced housing supply considerably, “Citizens Alternative Plan.” It was a February special election with 23% turnout. 15% of Seattle voters downzoned the city.
But this seems like it could change if we lived in a world where everyone was a renter, rather than renters being a young, transient population that unsurprisingly doesn't vote.
Homeownership is well below 50% of the voting eligible population in many major cities. But it’s the majority of the voters.
There are many studies on homeownership and voting. I recommend the book “The Homevoter Hypothesis” if you’d like to start informing yourself about these issues!
Before, your neighborhood's voters were homeowners who benefit from rising property values; after, they're renters who benefit from falling rents.
I've heard that Germany has more of this renting situation but no idea about the politics of housing supply over there.