3 ms·
This is precisely the mistake San Francisco has made. I strongly suggest not repeating it. The problem is that the fallback position tends to be building no ne
by Kalium 11y ago
This is precisely the mistake San Francisco has made. I strongly suggest not repeating it.
The problem is that the fallback position tends to be building no new housing at all. This results in the same new people with more money moving in, driving up housing costs and gentrifying the area. No amount of not building housing makes rents low.
- simoncion 11y ago> This is precisely the mistake San Francisco has made. What is that mistake? Permitting new, nice housing? If this is your opinion, I cannot agree with it. Firstly, something like 10->20% of all new residential construction must either be set aside for "affordable housing", or enough money must be given to The City to construct those units on behalf of the developer. Secondly, San Francisco's mistake is to -through a variety of screwups- make it nearly impossible to build new, dense residential buildings in the city. If a district is able to build enough housing to meet current and expected near-future demand, rents will usually remain stable. See footnotes 0 and 1 at [0] for some info on long-term trends in the area. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10556534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10556534
- Kalium 11y agoSF's mistake has been not allowing much of any housing to be built. This is what I'm suggesting needs to be avoided at all costs.
- simoncion 11y agoAh. It wasn't clear from your prose that this was your intended statement. The statement about the fallback position substantially muddied the waters, as it seems that the fallback position described is more-or-less the situation in SF right now. Oh well. :)