Company that makes rent-setting software for landlords sued for collusion

RealPage worked with some of the nation’s largest landlords to raise rents, says lawsuit.

Read the whole story

 

[Adreaver]

This one is interesting. I did a business exercise a few years ago where we had to figure out if gas stations posting their prices on the signs should count as collusion since their competitors can look and then adjust prices, and if that helps them raise prices and unofficially fix them as a group. This software reminds me of the same thing in that it's just a shortcut to looking at a bunch of price sheets.

Examining competitor's pricing is not collusion, it's an important feature of properly functioning capitalism. Simply put, if you don't know what a competitor is charging, it's difficult to undercut his price. While it's absolutely true that this knowledge can be used to artificially keep prices high, in a competitive market, it almost always has the opposite effect.

The problem with the software isn't that the prices of competitors are identified, it's the encouragement to keep units off the market. That discourages competition.

The software has access to non-public rent information, e.g. what is actually paid, not what is included in the listing. If I rent an apartment for $1000/mo, then when my lease comes up for renewal, the landlord increases the rent to $1200/mo, and I renew because I have no options. The public listing never updates beyond $1000/mo, because it was never publicly listed at $1200/mo.

This software takes all those private rent increases, shoves them into an algorithm, and then tells all the landlords to raise rents to $1250/mo.

 

[graylshaped]

This one is interesting. I did a business exercise a few years ago where we had to figure out if gas stations posting their prices on the signs should count as collusion since their competitors can look and then adjust prices, and if that helps them raise prices and unofficially fix them as a group. This software reminds me of the same thing in that it's just a shortcut to looking at a bunch of price sheets.

Examining competitor's pricing is not collusion, it's an important feature of properly functioning capitalism. Simply put, if you don't know what a competitor is charging, it's difficult to undercut his price. While it's absolutely true that this knowledge can be used to artificially keep prices high, in a competitive market, it almost always has the opposite effect.

The problem with the software isn't that the prices of competitors are identified, it's the encouragement to keep units off the market. That discourages competition.

The software has access to non-public rent information, e.g. what is actually paid, not what is included in the listing. If I rent an apartment for $1000/mo, then when my lease comes up for renewal, the landlord increases the rent to $1200/mo, and I renew because I have no options. The public listing never updates beyond $1000/mo, because it was never publicly listed at $1200/mo.

This software takes all those private rent increases, shoves them into an algorithm, and then tells all the landlords to raise rents to $1250/mo.

Anti-competitive.

I support this lawsuit with with my whole being, seeing how my daughter has been screwed with rising rents.

 

[watermeloncup]

How to tell that someone believes in far-right drivel:
1) Anti-vaxxer
2) (US only) Has a seemingly inexplicable obsession about maintaining confederate monuments, especially ones built after the civil war. (Europe only) Collects WWII historical artifacts/memorabilia but only from the loser side of WWII.
3) Has a seemingly inexplicable obsession with people of Israeli citizenship and/or of Jewish religion acquiring any kind of position of responsibility, particularly so in the financial services sector
4) Use the term "LGBTQ+" followed by the word "cabal" or similar
5) uses the word "commie" unironically to describe their political enemies

FTFY

 

[watermeloncup]

How to tell that someone believes in far-right drivel:
1) Anti-vaxxer
2) (US only) Has a seemingly inexplicable obsession about maintaining confederate monuments, especially ones built after the civil war. (Europe only) Collects WWII historical artifacts/memorabilia but only from the loser side of WWII.
3) Has a seemingly inexplicable obsession with people of Israeli citizenship and/or of Jewish religion acquiring any kind of position of responsibility, particularly so in the financial services sector
4) Use the term "LGBTQ+" followed by the word "cabal" or similar
5) uses the word "commie" unironically to describe their political enemies

FTFY

Thanks for the tip:

How to tell someone believes in commie drivel (addendum):
5) Complains about people using the word "commie" to describe them despite harboring far-left beliefs (all the way up to arguing about indiscriminately confiscating private property in a USSR-style manner, which is what the wordplay described in #4 is a coded message for)

Wow you're so clever.

 

[shelbystripes]

Interesting. When does a 'business idea' become an 'illegal racket'? Is this another sign of 'late stage capitalism'?

Tell me you believe in commie drivel without telling me you believe in commie drivel.

How to know when to stop reading and assume the entire post is unreadable shit:

1) “commie drivel”

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

The complaint alleges that the defendants manage more than 16 million rental units. That caused me to question how big the entire market is. This site: https://www.statista.com/statistics/104 ... homes-usa/ claims that as of October 2021 there were 37.75 million MDU rental units in the US. That would mean that RealPage has more than 42% of the total MDU units under their "control". It has been a long time since law school, but that would seem to me to be a big enough share to convince a court that the alleged actions had an actual impact on pricing.

And it looks like as they dig into it via discovery I'm going to bet they find in the largest most expensive markets their share is probably more like 70 or 80 percent of units available.

Indeed. A very large fraction of units are in the American "hinterlands" - small towns that aren't in commute distance of an urban metropolis. Each town doesn't have a lot of units, but there's a vast number of towns with at least an 8-plex or a converted motel.

Semi-relevant aside: my niece's wife made a small fortune for the very private well management firm of a "filthy rich Asian" family by successfully predicting the housing crisis in the oil fields of the Williston basin during the fracking boom; 300%+ profit on "buy up ALL the shitty rentals they could and make them barely livable dormitories, rent month-to-month to employers through the peak of the crisis, then sell out just afterwards" over roughly 3 years. While I have no particular sympathy for the drillers the plan extracted money from, the local working population who didn't take oil industry jobs got epically screwed on housing costs. Only bright side, not many of them in absolute numbers. But still.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

Internal venting limits ones options.

Personally, whenever I try purely internal venting, it leads to disastrous explosive results.

Oh... you're talking about clothes driers. NVM.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

This one is interesting. I did a business exercise a few years ago where we had to figure out if gas stations posting their prices on the signs should count as collusion since their competitors can look and then adjust prices, and if that helps them raise prices and unofficially fix them as a group. This software reminds me of the same thing in that it's just a shortcut to looking at a bunch of price sheets.

Oh boy, just wait until you hear that Gas Stations have been using this exact same kind of software for a looooooong time (PriceAdvantage/Kalibrate). No need to even look out the window or adjust the prices yourself!

Most stations don't have the freedom to adjust prices anyway. It's usually set by the suppliers, who quite obviously collude on it. But the stations themselves make very little on gas sales. It's all the other stuff that people come in and buy that makes them money.

Where I live (Sweden) there are many unmanned, automated gas stations - there is no shop, nothing else but fuel. Those stations would not make sense if the fuel was a loss leader. Even the "traditional" stations with a shop often require card payment directly at the pump, and most people who come to refuel will never enter the shop.

I guess the whole underlying business model is different - stations owned directly by the oil companies, less of a franchise?

Adding to what rosen380 said, in the US most gas stations are franchised. So they have an incentive to make money on side businesses given that the price of gas is mostly out of their hands and not profitable. Personally, I almost never go into the gas station stores except on long trips when I want snacks or to use the bathroom, but apparently it's a profitable enough business that many gas stations are expanding their store options, to the point where some actually have good food instead of hot dogs that have been on the rollers for 48 hours. Finally, cash payment is still pretty common in the US, which basically necessitates having a cashier on site anyway. Yes, they could use automatic cash acceptance machines, but those tend to be unreliable and would also be subject to theft and vandalism (bunch of degens in this country).

Suburban gas station/convenience store combos fill the bodega/corner store economic/ecologic niche that in other places is filled by stores without gasoline (petrol, for you folk who talk funny). Most places with any affluence at all have something that fills those "need it now, don't want to travel far" niches, whether it's corner stores or street vendors. In surburbia, the land controls prevent smaller players from entering the market, creating a situation ripe for commodity chain stores that are uniform, boring, and vaguely predatory as the norm. But they sure are convenient.

 

[Uragan]

Interesting. When does a 'business idea' become an 'illegal racket'? Is this another sign of 'late stage capitalism'?

Tell me you believe in commie drivel without telling me you believe in commie drivel.

For future reference:

How to tell someone believes in commie drivel:
1) Uses the term 'late stage capitalism' unironically and without defining it (as if anyone should already know)
2) Thinks Banksy's art pieces have some deeper meaning (instead of the attention-seeking drivel it is)
3) Thinks this particular cartoon makes a fair point (to those who think it does, a negative net worth can potentially be a problem, but not being able to service ongoing expenses -including but not limited to debt repayments- is *definitely* a problem)
4) Makes lame wordplays with the word "our"

How to tell that someone believes in far-right drivel:
1) Anti-vaxxer
2) (US only) Has a seemingly inexplicable obsession about maintaining confederate monuments, especially ones built after the civil war. (Europe only) Collects WWII historical artifacts/memorabilia but only from the loser side of WWII.
3) Has a seemingly inexplicable obsession with people of Israeli citizenship and/or of Jewish religion acquiring any kind of position of responsibility, particularly so in the financial services sector
4) Use the term "LGBTQ+" followed by the word "cabal" or similar

And here is me, who wants to read some tech and gaming news without reading other people's drivel, but people can't help themselves from throwing their political driver at the fan. There is a reason most other tech and gaming sites (with the exception of Ars) explicitly don't allow any kind of "political discourse" in the comments.

Nobody cares. No one said you were obligated to read the comments section, much less leave a comment.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

I'll mention as an aside that most states have something like Oklahoma's Residential Landlord and Tenant Act that specifies a great deal about the legal duties on each side. Big property companies don't make many basic mistakes in adhering to these kinds of laws, but small-time landlords routinely do, because many renters don't have the time, energy, money, or knowledge to push back on abuses.

Some thirty years ago, I and a friend rented a drafty old wood-frame house for a couple years; I took a couple rolls of film upon move-in and had a friend print-up contact sheets and another friend date and notarize (collecting on some old favors).

In the course of living there, I replaced a broken front door lock; called the landlord when it broke on a Thursday and he said "his guy" could get to it Monday or Tuesday. I fixed it Friday, told him it was done and just ate the cost, but documented it. The housemate got into the attic for some damn reason - pure curiousness iirc - and discovered why one doesn't step off the rafters the hard way, but didn't fall through; they did a more-than-barely adequate patch job and touch up; you didn't need to know where to look to spot it, surface was pretty wavy, but it didn't catch your eye unless you were "inspecting" (I was pleasantly surprised). And when the kitchen pipes froze despite dripping the cold water line (only! mea culpa, mea culpa) and the landlord said "his guy" wouldn't be able to do anything about it, I borrowed a torch and crawled under the house - surprisingly pleasant for such - and gently thawed it out; told the landlord and documented it.

When move out came, the landlord tried to keep our 2-months'-rent security deposit, claiming "excessive damage beyond normal wear and tear". I sent him a letter giving him a week before filing a claim in court, documenting the above in an addendum, and most particularly reminding him that the Oklahoma law required security deposits be maintained in escrow and not commingled with other funds - which he obviously hadn't done.

Fucker apparently pissed around and didn't open the certified letter until the last day - "his guy" showed up with a personal check for the deposit in the evening, technically after the deadline. I was first in line at that bank to get cash the very next business day.

Many cities have tenant associations that can provide some help and information, but there's no substitute for documenting everything as you go along - especially verbal "promises" - and not omitting any negative things, AND knowing the actual legal requirements. 80-90% of the law is actually straightforward, readable, and pretty reasonable, iirc.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

In the same vein of timely, relevant, and useful checklists, How To Spot A Scalawag.

1) Dances on a Sunday.
2) Dances on a Wednesday.
3) Haughty air.
4) Only uses horse, ass, or oxen for motive power instead of tapping into the right proper labor pool utilized in Old Egypt times.
5) Harbors unChristian views about "equality of the races."
6) Declaims at length in a diatribe contravening proper Southern dignity.

 

[watermeloncup]

This one is interesting. I did a business exercise a few years ago where we had to figure out if gas stations posting their prices on the signs should count as collusion since their competitors can look and then adjust prices, and if that helps them raise prices and unofficially fix them as a group. This software reminds me of the same thing in that it's just a shortcut to looking at a bunch of price sheets.

Oh boy, just wait until you hear that Gas Stations have been using this exact same kind of software for a looooooong time (PriceAdvantage/Kalibrate). No need to even look out the window or adjust the prices yourself!

Most stations don't have the freedom to adjust prices anyway. It's usually set by the suppliers, who quite obviously collude on it. But the stations themselves make very little on gas sales. It's all the other stuff that people come in and buy that makes them money.

Where I live (Sweden) there are many unmanned, automated gas stations - there is no shop, nothing else but fuel. Those stations would not make sense if the fuel was a loss leader. Even the "traditional" stations with a shop often require card payment directly at the pump, and most people who come to refuel will never enter the shop.

I guess the whole underlying business model is different - stations owned directly by the oil companies, less of a franchise?

Adding to what rosen380 said, in the US most gas stations are franchised. So they have an incentive to make money on side businesses given that the price of gas is mostly out of their hands and not profitable. Personally, I almost never go into the gas station stores except on long trips when I want snacks or to use the bathroom, but apparently it's a profitable enough business that many gas stations are expanding their store options, to the point where some actually have good food instead of hot dogs that have been on the rollers for 48 hours. Finally, cash payment is still pretty common in the US, which basically necessitates having a cashier on site anyway. Yes, they could use automatic cash acceptance machines, but those tend to be unreliable and would also be subject to theft and vandalism (bunch of degens in this country).

Suburban gas station/convenience store combos fill the bodega/corner store economic/ecologic niche that in other places is filled by stores without gasoline (petrol, for you folk who talk funny). Most places with any affluence at all have something that fills those "need it now, don't want to travel far" niches, whether it's corner stores or street vendors. In surburbia, the land controls prevent smaller players from entering the market, creating a situation ripe for commodity chain stores that are uniform, boring, and vaguely predatory as the norm. But they sure are convenient.

Fair point. I guess it just so happened that even when I'm in a suburban or rural area I've very rarely found them more convenient than going to the grocery store or a Walgreens or similar. But those gas station convenience stores are generally busy so I guess a lot of people do find them useful. I have found them useful to get supplies or very basic OTC medicine when basically no other stores are open, like very late at night or on Christmas.

 

[Bondles_9]

They just gotta amend the algo to not use nonpublic data, or only use nonpublic data from the client. It could still help clients decide rents to charge.

Seriously, let the "private information" thing go. Private information is not the problem. The problem is landlords colluding with each other to force prices up instead of competing with each other (which would bring prices down). 100% of the information could be public and they would still be operating as a cartel.

 

[OrvGull]

This also feeds into the climate crisis. Santa Monica has a daytime population of 250k and a nighttime population of 90k (the latter is about the same as it was in 1970).

I read somewhere that Santa Monica has added around 4,000 units of housing total since 1970, while adding roughly 20 times that many jobs.

This is typical of a lot of towns -- they want cheap labor but they don't want those people hanging around the place after hours.

 

[panderson420]

I've never heard of an analyst that requires management to justify why they are departing from the analyst's recommendation.

This implies a relationship is of a different nature than just advisory.

Would be interesting to know what happens if a company signs up for this service then repeatedly refuses to keep properties off the market when instructed, and refuses to not undercut the recommended prices.

We'll probably learn that during discovery.

Nah, we won't, because those records are private records of free expression.

 

[OrvGull]

Your choice is "Do I rent this property at this ridiculously inflated price, or do I sleep in my car and hope I don't lose my job, because I won't be able to get another one without an address."

And increasingly sleeping in your car is also illegal.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Your choice is "Do I rent this property at this ridiculously inflated price, or do I sleep in my car and hope I don't lose my job, because I won't be able to get another one without an address."

And increasingly sleeping in your car is also illegal.

Yep. It's illegal to be homeless, and it's also in many places illegal to FEED the homeless.
The way Jesus intended.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

I've never heard of an analyst that requires management to justify why they are departing from the analyst's recommendation.

This implies a relationship is of a different nature than just advisory.

Would be interesting to know what happens if a company signs up for this service then repeatedly refuses to keep properties off the market when instructed, and refuses to not undercut the recommended prices.

We'll probably learn that during discovery.

Nah, we won't, because those records are private records of free expression.

Either you left off the /sarcasm, or you have absolutely no idea how American legal process works.

Discovery lets both sides in a lawsuit say to the other side: "drop your pants, bend over, and give us a really good look". And failing to comply with discovery means that: a) the judge gets really pissed off b) the judge can instruct the jury to make "adverse inferences" from the withheld information - basically "image the reasonable worst possible and pretends its whats there" when making the jury's decision.

You can ask Alex Jones how well stone-walling on discovery works out.

 

[panderson420]

I've never heard of an analyst that requires management to justify why they are departing from the analyst's recommendation.

This implies a relationship is of a different nature than just advisory.

Would be interesting to know what happens if a company signs up for this service then repeatedly refuses to keep properties off the market when instructed, and refuses to not undercut the recommended prices.

We'll probably learn that during discovery.

Nah, we won't, because those records are private records of free expression.

Either you left off the /sarcasm, or you have absolutely no idea how American legal process works.

Discovery lets both sides in a lawsuit say to the other side: "drop your pants, bend over, and give us a really good look". And failing to comply with discovery means that: a) the judge gets really pissed off b) the judge can instruct the jury to make "adverse inferences" from the withheld information - basically "image the reasonable worst possible and pretends its whats there" when making the jury's decision.

You can ask Alex Jones how well stone-walling on discovery works out.

Yeah, you clearly have a Law & Order education here, it is so cute you believe that.

 

[Faustius23]

I've never heard of an analyst that requires management to justify why they are departing from the analyst's recommendation.

This implies a relationship is of a different nature than just advisory.

Would be interesting to know what happens if a company signs up for this service then repeatedly refuses to keep properties off the market when instructed, and refuses to not undercut the recommended prices.

We'll probably learn that during discovery.

Nah, we won't, because those records are private records of free expression.

Ohh No! Now we have sovereign citizen corporations!

"Your honor, I don't have any business records to turn over during discovery. I just have private records of free expression."

 

[panderson420]

I've never heard of an analyst that requires management to justify why they are departing from the analyst's recommendation.

This implies a relationship is of a different nature than just advisory.

Would be interesting to know what happens if a company signs up for this service then repeatedly refuses to keep properties off the market when instructed, and refuses to not undercut the recommended prices.

We'll probably learn that during discovery.

Nah, we won't, because those records are private records of free expression.

Ohh No! Now we have sovereign citizen corporations!

Yeah that's been true for really near 20 years now.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

I've never heard of an analyst that requires management to justify why they are departing from the analyst's recommendation.

This implies a relationship is of a different nature than just advisory.

Would be interesting to know what happens if a company signs up for this service then repeatedly refuses to keep properties off the market when instructed, and refuses to not undercut the recommended prices.

We'll probably learn that during discovery.

Nah, we won't, because those records are private records of free expression.

Either you left off the /sarcasm, or you have absolutely no idea how American legal process works.

Discovery lets both sides in a lawsuit say to the other side: "drop your pants, bend over, and give us a really good look". And failing to comply with discovery means that: a) the judge gets really pissed off b) the judge can instruct the jury to make "adverse inferences" from the withheld information - basically "image the reasonable worst possible and pretends its whats there" when making the jury's decision.

You can ask Alex Jones how well stone-walling on discovery works out.

Yeah, you clearly have a Law & Order education here, it is so cute you believe that.

Hate to break it to you dearie, but Law & Order is about criminal law, not civil law; even your clapbacks are incompetent.

 

[panderson420]

I've never heard of an analyst that requires management to justify why they are departing from the analyst's recommendation.

This implies a relationship is of a different nature than just advisory.

Would be interesting to know what happens if a company signs up for this service then repeatedly refuses to keep properties off the market when instructed, and refuses to not undercut the recommended prices.

We'll probably learn that during discovery.

Nah, we won't, because those records are private records of free expression.

Either you left off the /sarcasm, or you have absolutely no idea how American legal process works.

Discovery lets both sides in a lawsuit say to the other side: "drop your pants, bend over, and give us a really good look". And failing to comply with discovery means that: a) the judge gets really pissed off b) the judge can instruct the jury to make "adverse inferences" from the withheld information - basically "image the reasonable worst possible and pretends its whats there" when making the jury's decision.

You can ask Alex Jones how well stone-walling on discovery works out.

Yeah, you clearly have a Law & Order education here, it is so cute you believe that.

Hate to break it to you dearie, but Law & Order is about criminal law, not civil law; even your clapbacks are incompetent.

Lol.

Okay, fine.

They have a TV education.

Happy?

Their 'interpretation' of law (and I use that term very very loosely) truly sucks.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Yeah that's been true for really near 20 years now.

Now I know you're just making shit up. The first corporation to declare sovereignty was Destroido Corp. in 2010. The claim was never tested in court as an unknown series of events resulted in the wholesale, retroactive rebooting of reality and in the new world Destroido was founded as green-power company Creationex Corp. The previous reality is only known to a group of meddling kids, their dog, and Harlan Ellison.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

Your choice is "Do I rent this property at this ridiculously inflated price, or do I sleep in my car and hope I don't lose my job, because I won't be able to get another one without an address."

And increasingly sleeping in your car is also illegal.

Yep. It's illegal to be homeless, and it's also in many places illegal to FEED the homeless.
The way Jesus intended.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

 

[azazel1024]

Just another example reason - housing should not be a commodity. You don't even have to make it one-property per person, property can stay in the market. Just limit both businesses and people to a couple of houses max.

Zoning laws are one of the biggest problems. Soviet Russia got a lot of things wrong, but they actually did housing pretty smartly. Lots of dense mass developments with accessible transportation to city centers are the way to go. Single family housing is a wasteful use of land that creates artificial scarcity when we could be building apartments instead.

Yeah, Soviet urban planning often followed a concept very similar to the modern idea of Super Blocks, where multiple blocks are combined together with vehicle access only on the periphery. This created a pleasant semi-parkland right outside the front door of each building. Basic services were also provided within walking distance, making them a very convenient place to live. In addition, I think there's something to learn about how the Soviet planners were able to build an extremely large amount of relatively high quality housing for a low amount of money. City Beautiful had a video on Soviet urban planning that covers this pretty well.

That said, I think in a free country like the US, there should be difference choices for housing, including single family homes. I just don't think that single family homes should be the only thing that's allowed to be built (the opposite of choice).

edit: typo

The "high quality" is actually in quotes, right? I agree that the urban planning had something going for it. However, the execution on the actual quality of the housing itself was/is, um, not having much to recommend it. A huge amount of soviet construction from the 70s, 80s and early 90s became largely abandoned once the wall came down because it was a crap hole and no one wanted to live there. A lot that is still occupied is only because most of those people have no alternative.

 

[brewejon]

Just another example reason - housing should not be a commodity. You don't even have to make it one-property per person, property can stay in the market. Just limit both businesses and people to a couple of houses max.

An issue with that is huge areas are primarily vacation areas. I absolutely understand that can drive up locals housing prices and rental rates a ton. And that is an issue. But there is only a local economy and a reason for a lot of people to live there, because it is a vacation destination. And thus most people who own property own it only to vacation there. Or to rent it to others who want to vacation there. I am not sure how you fix that.

On other markets, I think the only way to fix lots of people being landlords and renting places out, would be that the government needs to step in and help people buy a property. Otherwise even if you limited ownership to get rid of landlords, vastly cratering housing prices, many of the people who rent, still couldn't own. They don't have the liquid funds for a mortgage and closing costs, or they don't have the credit, etc.

And I guess you could reform those markets to get rid of things like credit. But that also drives up loan costs for everyone else if you get rid of anything to look at to see how likely someone is to be able to pay back the loan they've taken out.

Etc.

Completely logical objection to my proposal, but I believe you can design the policy to allow for second properties. For example:

As an individual or company, you pay 0% tax on your first residential property owned. Then 1% annual tax on your second property’s total worth, 3% on your third property, 6% on your fourth, 10% on your fifth, 15% on your sixth, and so on. It allows people to own two properties, for example a home and a holiday home, but further properties quickly get entirely uneconomical. Play with the percentages as you like, but that's the framework.

I've previously laid it out in way more detail on Twitter if you care to read more: https://twitter.com/Brewenjon/status/15 ... Gbp4cxjYtA

 

[watermeloncup]

Just another example reason - housing should not be a commodity. You don't even have to make it one-property per person, property can stay in the market. Just limit both businesses and people to a couple of houses max.

Zoning laws are one of the biggest problems. Soviet Russia got a lot of things wrong, but they actually did housing pretty smartly. Lots of dense mass developments with accessible transportation to city centers are the way to go. Single family housing is a wasteful use of land that creates artificial scarcity when we could be building apartments instead.

Yeah, Soviet urban planning often followed a concept very similar to the modern idea of Super Blocks, where multiple blocks are combined together with vehicle access only on the periphery. This created a pleasant semi-parkland right outside the front door of each building. Basic services were also provided within walking distance, making them a very convenient place to live. In addition, I think there's something to learn about how the Soviet planners were able to build an extremely large amount of relatively high quality housing for a low amount of money. City Beautiful had a video on Soviet urban planning that covers this pretty well.

That said, I think in a free country like the US, there should be difference choices for housing, including single family homes. I just don't think that single family homes should be the only thing that's allowed to be built (the opposite of choice).

edit: typo

The "high quality" is actually in quotes, right? I agree that the urban planning had something going for it. However, the execution on the actual quality of the housing itself was/is, um, not having much to recommend it. A huge amount of soviet construction from the 70s, 80s and early 90s became largely abandoned once the wall came down because it was a crap hole and no one wanted to live there. A lot that is still occupied is only because most of those people have no alternative.

It's all relative. It was high quality housing compared to what most people were living in before, which was mostly either in shacks or in very old traditional housing much (most?) of which had neither indoor plumbing nor electricity. The buildings all had electricity, a modern for the time kitchen, a full bathroom, central heat, and most featured large windows that let in a lot of light and a balcony. The apartments were of adequate size for the number of people they were intended to house, but of course they often became overcrowded at many points in time.

Of course Soviet maintenance and quality control was pretty terrible, and that became even worse once the system collapsed. But a lot of these buildings are still around and still lived in, and some of the better maintained buildings are even considered desirable. The buildings can be monotonous and ugly, but a lot of post-Soviet states have significantly improved their appearance just by painting them or installing cladding.

Note, I don't want to defend the Soviet system in the slightest. I just think that their housing policy had some positive points, particularly the superblock style layout and the churning out massive numbers of prefab buildings to ease a housing crisis.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

Note, I don't want to defend the Soviet system in the slightest. I just think that their housing policy had some positive points, particularly the superblock style layout and the churning out massive numbers of prefab buildings to ease a housing crisis.

And of course we have to keep in mind the utter devastation left behind by World War II, and the long “reboot” that followed.

The extreme case would be Stalingrad (now Volgograd), the site of the (probably) bloodiest battle of all time, with the total death toll estimates varying by over half a million, from 1.25 to 1.80 million dead.

There wasn’t a habitable building of any kind left in the entire city, a vital important port town; while hindsight surely shows where they could have done better, the Soviet rebuild was overall a literally infinite improvement over the status quo and a net improvement over the pre-war housing stock for the non-elites.

That it came with Stalinism is tragic, but I suspect non-repressed ethnic Russians who lived there mostly saw the rebuild as a positive wonder.

 

[watermeloncup]

Note, I don't want to defend the Soviet system in the slightest. I just think that their housing policy had some positive points, particularly the superblock style layout and the churning out massive numbers of prefab buildings to ease a housing crisis.

And of course we have to keep in mind the utter devastation left behind by World War II, and the long “reboot” that followed.

The extreme case would be Stalingrad (now Volgograd), the site of the (probably) bloodiest battle of all time, with the total death toll estimates varying by over half a million, from 1.25 to 1.80 million dead.

There wasn’t a habitable building of any kind left in the entire city, a vital important port town; while hindsight surely shows where they could have done better, the Soviet rebuild was overall a literally infinite improvement over the status quo and a net improvement over the pre-war housing stock for the non-elites.

That it came with Stalinism is tragic, but I suspect non-repressed ethnic Russians who lived there mostly saw the rebuild as a positive wonder.

Excellent point. It would probably would have been impossible to house so many people without an aggressive government building program. The unmet needs were so great that a high level of efficiency was needed. Though I should note that most of the surviving Soviet-era housing in Eastern Bloc countries was planned and built after Stalin died, particularly the Khrushchyovka and Brezhnevkas (which are most of the high rise towers).

Maybe a better historical lesson to look at would be Sweden's post-war housing program. After WW2, Sweden was in a pretty similar situation to the one that's afflicting the US and most other Western countries. They had a massive housing shortage due to fast urbanization rather than wartime devastation, and of course are a democratic and mostly free market country, unlike the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, they were able to build 1 million housing units over two decades, in a country with just 8 million people. The actual building and management was generally left to private companies and housing was a mixture of apartment buildings (many of which look similar to Khrushchyovkas) and single family homes, which is a much better fit politically in the West.

edit to add: Wikipedia article on the Swedish housing program

 

[Uragan]

Note, I don't want to defend the Soviet system in the slightest. I just think that their housing policy had some positive points, particularly the superblock style layout and the churning out massive numbers of prefab buildings to ease a housing crisis.

And of course we have to keep in mind the utter devastation left behind by World War II, and the long “reboot” that followed.

The extreme case would be Stalingrad (now Volgograd), the site of the (probably) bloodiest battle of all time, with the total death toll estimates varying by over half a million, from 1.25 to 1.80 million dead.

There wasn’t a habitable building of any kind left in the entire city, a vital important port town; while hindsight surely shows where they could have done better, the Soviet rebuild was overall a literally infinite improvement over the status quo and a net improvement over the pre-war housing stock for the non-elites.

That it came with Stalinism is tragic, but I suspect non-repressed ethnic Russians who lived there mostly saw the rebuild as a positive wonder.

It's a shame that the Soviets decided to back off on de-Stalinization after removing Khrushchev. His removal and the Era of Stagnation was a curse.

 

[graylshaped]

Note, I don't want to defend the Soviet system in the slightest. I just think that their housing policy had some positive points, particularly the superblock style layout and the churning out massive numbers of prefab buildings to ease a housing crisis.

And of course we have to keep in mind the utter devastation left behind by World War II, and the long “reboot” that followed.

The extreme case would be Stalingrad (now Volgograd), the site of the (probably) bloodiest battle of all time, with the total death toll estimates varying by over half a million, from 1.25 to 1.80 million dead.

There wasn’t a habitable building of any kind left in the entire city, a vital important port town; while hindsight surely shows where they could have done better, the Soviet rebuild was overall a literally infinite improvement over the status quo and a net improvement over the pre-war housing stock for the non-elites.

That it came with Stalinism is tragic, but I suspect non-repressed ethnic Russians who lived there mostly saw the rebuild as a positive wonder.

Theory: Russia is targeting housing to make moving to Russia more attractive to Ukrainians.

It appears most of them are saying Fuck That Shit.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Note, I don't want to defend the Soviet system in the slightest. I just think that their housing policy had some positive points, particularly the superblock style layout and the churning out massive numbers of prefab buildings to ease a housing crisis.

And of course we have to keep in mind the utter devastation left behind by World War II, and the long “reboot” that followed.

The extreme case would be Stalingrad (now Volgograd), the site of the (probably) bloodiest battle of all time, with the total death toll estimates varying by over half a million, from 1.25 to 1.80 million dead.

There wasn’t a habitable building of any kind left in the entire city, a vital important port town; while hindsight surely shows where they could have done better, the Soviet rebuild was overall a literally infinite improvement over the status quo and a net improvement over the pre-war housing stock for the non-elites.

That it came with Stalinism is tragic, but I suspect non-repressed ethnic Russians who lived there mostly saw the rebuild as a positive wonder.

Theory: Russia is targeting housing to make moving to Russia more attractive to Ukrainians.

It appears most of them are saying Fuck That Shit.

According to Russia, Ukrainians are already in Russia!

 

[ScreamingFist]

i keep having thoughts of chairman mao coming back as a zombie or something this halloween season

Sorry, he won his third term as President and is ramping up a cultural revolution; this one based on Han supremicist sentiments.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

i keep having thoughts of chairman mao coming back as a zombie or something this halloween season

Sorry, he won his third term as President and is ramping up a cultural revolution; this one based on Han supremicist sentiments.

Sadly, a lot of Chinese (both abroad and in the US) are unabashedly racist (without joining with white racists here). A White friend met her African husband while both were studying in China; when they moved to the US and were still poor, they'd sometimes treat themselves to a Chinese dinner where the staff spoke Mandarin, which they had both picked up. They'd enjoy their meal while speaking English; if racist commentary about them occurred in Mandarin, they'd endure it for a bit, then ask for the manager and complain. They got a decent number of comp'd meals and some amusing stories and a lifetime friend in a busgirl who got enraged on their behalf and lit into her mother loudly with profanity. It got ugly until the couple started intervening in Mandarin; "large black dude" speaking "Chinese" apparently shocked everyone enough to knock them out of a well-traversed groove for a bit and made the mother burst into tears of... something...

 

[crmarvin42]

i keep having thoughts of chairman mao coming back as a zombie or something this halloween season

Sorry, he won his third term as President and is ramping up a cultural revolution; this one based on Han supremicist sentiments.

Sadly, a lot of Chinese (both abroad and in the US) are unabashedly racist (without joining with white racists here). A White friend met her African husband while both were studying in China; when they moved to the US and were still poor, they'd sometimes treat themselves to a Chinese dinner where the staff spoke Mandarin, which they had both picked up. They'd enjoy their meal while speaking English; if racist commentary about them occurred in Mandarin, they'd endure it for a bit, then ask for the manager and complain. They got a decent number of comp'd meals and some amusing stories and a lifetime friend in a busgirl who got enraged on their behalf and lit into her mother loudly with profanity. It got ugly until the couple started intervening in Mandarin; "large black dude" speaking "Chinese" apparently shocked everyone enough to knock them out of a well-traversed groove for a bit and made the mother burst into tears of... something...

Yeah. Not Chinese myself, but I know a few non-chinese who's in-laws are pretty god awful with the racism.

My Portuguese grandfather was the same way. His surname was commonly confused with a Puerto Rican surname, and my mother/uncle received a bunch of racist comments as a result while growing up in an otherwise entirely WASP community. He was never upset about the racism against Puerto Ricans. Only that anyone would confuse a good up-standing Portuguese family for a "dirty Puerto Rican" one.

I get the impression most countries without a lot of ethnic diversity are incredibly racist by default. Mostly the ignorant racism, not necessarily the malicious racism for most. Stereotypes fill in the gaps in experience after all. When they immigrate, they bring those preconceptions with them, and since there is so much new to learn, they hold on to what they think they know that much harder as a means of maintaining their cultural identity. Doesn't make it right, of course, but does make it an oddly near-universal trait in most first and a significant number of second generation immigrant adults in my experience. When their fully integrated children want to start dating or marrying people from those "lesser" groups, all sorts of shenanigans ensue.

 

[ardent]

i keep having thoughts of chairman mao coming back as a zombie or something this halloween season

Sorry, he won his third term as President and is ramping up a cultural revolution; this one based on Han supremicist sentiments.

Sadly, a lot of Chinese (both abroad and in the US) are unabashedly racist (without joining with white racists here). A White friend met her African husband while both were studying in China; when they moved to the US and were still poor, they'd sometimes treat themselves to a Chinese dinner where the staff spoke Mandarin, which they had both picked up. They'd enjoy their meal while speaking English; if racist commentary about them occurred in Mandarin, they'd endure it for a bit, then ask for the manager and complain. They got a decent number of comp'd meals and some amusing stories and a lifetime friend in a busgirl who got enraged on their behalf and lit into her mother loudly with profanity. It got ugly until the couple started intervening in Mandarin; "large black dude" speaking "Chinese" apparently shocked everyone enough to knock them out of a well-traversed groove for a bit and made the mother burst into tears of... something...

This is a fun dynamic. My cousin's wife is a bleeding heart liberal of Chinese extraction who worked for her parents at their restaurant for more of her pre-collegiate work life. She is gratingly woke. Finds any form of racism abhorrent, lampshades it, rallies against it, etc. Meanwhile her parents are incredibly racist, which she never comments on or acknowledges.

I noticed this pretty immediately because they reacted to the fact that my daughter's light coloration is not shared by my sons' darker complexions. They are visibly perplexed by how my daughter and their granddaughter look *very* similar and my other children look...well, more like their grandfather. Darker hair, browner skin, but blue eyes. They especially don't understand how my "very white" wife and I produced brown-skinned children, and their assumption has at times appeared to be that my wife slept with one of my black cousins. Nevermind that my wife is Asian, not white, and I may pass, but I am also not entirely of white extraction. But my wife may as well be a Uyghur to them as far as they care about her non-white identity (i.e. a Muslim).

I haven't spoken to her about it because I don't really want to get dragged into a conversation about how our (American) warmongering is ruining the world, and that China reclaiming Taiwan really isn't a big deal, so why do we keep preventing it, etc.

 

[Adreaver]

They just gotta amend the algo to not use nonpublic data, or only use nonpublic data from the client. It could still help clients decide rents to charge.

Seriously, let the "private information" thing go. Private information is not the problem. The problem is landlords colluding with each other to force prices up instead of competing with each other (which would bring prices down). 100% of the information could be public and they would still be operating as a cartel.

The problem is both the private data and the algorithmically determined rent increases across the board.

Without the private data, the algorithm wouldn't be able to raise rents nearly as aggressively, as there would be no way to know whether any given landlord was going to go along with it. Without the algorithm, the landlords wouldn't be nearly as efficient at setting rents at just-below-too-high-for-the-market-to-bear. Without either, the landlords would essentially be looking at FOR RENT ads and making their best guess - which is what should be happening in this (and every other) market.