Looking for a ton of quality evidence and insightful topic analyses compiled by seasoned debaters? We’ve got our free 110-page March PF brief here!

The heart of this debate will boil down to which side of the motion can provide the best housing for the most people. Who can access that advantage better and quicker. The opposite of affordable housing is market rate housing. Affordable housing seems like a great idea in theory, but it is REALLY hard to implement, with most local and government sources saying that in order to build, they need mass subsidies and government programs.

Market rate housing on the other hand, ensures that buildings will be built. Sure they may not be priced affordably at first, but build enough of them, and scarcity will no longer keep the prices high. Let’s look into some definitions first.

Definitions:

Market rate housing

is an apartment that has no rent restrictions. A landlord who owns market-rate housing is free to attempt to rent the space at whatever price the local market may fetch. In other words, the term applies to conventional rentals that are not restricted by affordable housing laws. – Ron Leshnower, Esq (Licensed real estate attorney, and author)[ https://www.thespruce.com/market-rate-apartment-155986]

Urban Neighborhoods:

An urban area is the region surrounding a city – National Geograpchic

of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city – Merriam Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/urban

Best topical Aff analysis:
“ Market-Rate Housing Isn’t a Bad Word, and We Won’t Solve the Housing Crisis Without It”  – https://artplusmarketing.com/market-rate-housing-isnt-a-bad-word-and-we-won-t-solve-the-housing-crisis-without-it-ce67c06aff4d

High prices are not due to lack of affordable housing – its due to scarcity.
“Which means: In addition to expanding the supply of subsidized income-based affordable units, we must increase the overall supply of housing, and that means — you guessed it — market-rate housing. Some describe all new market-rate housing as “luxury housing,” because it’s expensive. Well, of course it’s expensive, since for decades we haven’t built enough of it. According to California’s Legislative Analyst, the state needs to produce about 180,000 units of housing a year to keep up with growth. In practice, we produce less than half that number.And, let’s be real. While the new apartment or condo project down the street is expensive, so is the 75-year-old house or apartment you’re trying to buy or rent. It’s all expensive, and that’s not because it’s “luxury.” It’s because it’s scarce.”

Scarcity not affordability is the problem

Joe Cortight (2017): [Joe Cortright is President and principal economist of Impresa, a consulting firm specializing in regional economic analysis, innovation and industry clusters. Over the past two decades he has specialized in urban economies developing the City Vitals framework with CEOs for Cities, and developing the city dividends concept. Joe’s work casts a light on the role of knowledge-based industries in shaping regional economies. Prior to starting Impresa, Joe served for 12 years as the Executive Officer of the Oregon Legislature’s Trade and Economic Development Committee.] http://cityobservatory.org/the-end-of-the-housing-supply-debate-maybe/

“There’s been a war of words about what kind of housing policies are needed to address the nation’s affordability problems. Economists (from the White House to academe) argue that increasing housing supply is essential. Low income housing advocates of many stripes push for efforts to pay via taxes or require via regulations that more units be built specifically for low and moderate income households.

Everyone agrees that much of the affordability problem is due to national policies that provide massive subsidies to homeownership by the wealthy (mostly through the tax code) and parsimonious and chronically underfunded programs that provide subsidies for the poor (which reach less than a quarter of those technically eligible), a fair share of responsibility lies in the hand of local governments. Is the key relaxing zoning limits to allow more market rate housing, or does it require regulating or subsidizing more affordable units into existence.”

Market rate housing ensures that we have at least a equal-to ratio of growth to housing, which brings the overall market rate DOWN, not up.

DO NOT let Neg tell the judge that market-rate is luxury housing. It is not. Here is a great explanation from the previous author:

Building more market rate housing isn’t so much about “trickle down” as it is building enough new housing to keep higher income households from moving down-market and bidding up the price of older housing that would otherwise be affordable to moderate and lower income households. When there isn’t enough supply, demand from higher income households floods down to older housing stock, driving up rents and reducing housing options for those with lesser means. Which, as why, as we’ve observed, in some markets, modest 1950’s-era ranch homes are a mainstay of affordability, while in others, they cost more than a million bucks.

Further Resources:

http://cityobservatory.org/the-end-of-the-housing-supply-debate-maybe/

https://artplusmarketing.com/market-rate-housing-isnt-a-bad-word-and-we-won-t-solve-the-housing-crisis-without-it-ce67c06aff4d

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/10/18076868/affordable-housing-explained