C
alifornia's low fire insurance premiums led major insurers to stop writing policies, while New York's heavily discounted broadband mandate prompted a major internet provider to pull out of the state. In Albany, city legislators demanded affordable units in new rental housing, but developers stopped building altogether. These examples illustrate that businesses won't comply with laws they deem unprofitable.

    Mandatory inclusionary housing has had mixed results. It seems to have worked in New York City, where developers were required to make 25% of units in new rental buildings cheaper than market-rate. However, when Albany increased its own version of the policy in 2023, requiring more affordable units, builders pulled back. Mayor Kathy Sheehan attributed this to the requirement becoming too costly for developers.

    Requiring too many money-losing apartments can kill development altogether. If market-rate units aren't profitable enough to subsidize them, the project doesn't make financial sense and never gets built. Albany's city council has since passed an ordinance to make affordable housing easier to build, but Sheehan vetoed it due to concerns about the affordability requirement.

    The examples of California fire insurance and New York broadband are instructive. Major insurers withdrew from California due to low premiums, leaving some owners without coverage on homes that have burned down. In New York, a law requiring internet providers to offer affordable broadband at $15 per month led AT&T to stop offering wireless home internet statewide.

    Market-rate housing is better than no housing, as it allows for filtering – when people move into new housing, they make cheaper housing available to others. Critics call this "trickle-down," but disparaging labels can't build housing.