3 ms·

I thought the article was weak. There was barely a change in displacement with new market rate housing vs not. My biggest issue is the highway theory - build

I thought the article was weak. There was barely a change in displacement with new market rate housing vs not. My biggest issue is the highway theory - build more lanes, commute time is shorter, more people drive, purpose defeated. Here build more market rate housing, prices fall, more people move in that would have loved elesewhere in bay area, prices rise. Purpose defeated. I like projects that include percentage of units to be affordable, rent control, and programs to build on surplus public land for affordable housing. Beyond that not sure what else they can do. At end of day government only has so much they can subsidize. Unless they start building homes underground or on the bay...

mc32 11y ago
The thing is the people who can afford to buy a house or pay the high rents will push out the people who can't, regardless of housing stock. Someone with money can buy the unit I rent, and, given it's private property there is no reason in the world they should not be able to move in --we're not at the stage of confiscating property. Traffic throughput is different [unless you are comparing it to the toll express lanes]. Normal highways have no barrier to entry other than the vehicle you need to enter with anyway, so of course people will take whichever way gets you there faster. If before you had to take the 2-hour bus, or the surface streets which took two hours, but now you can take the freeway which takes an hour, all things being equal you take the freeway... Now, if you had to pay a toll to get on the freeway AND there was also public transit which was cheaper, you might take public transit. The sad thing is politicians on either side ignore economics when it benefits their point of view or it aligns themselves with the ignorance of the people they represent [climate change, fiscal policy, housing, jobs policies, etc] so I'm under no illusions this report by the state gov't[1] will convince city supes. [1]http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345 http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345

mc32 11y ago

The thing is the people who can afford to buy a house or pay the high rents will push out the people who can't, regardless of housing stock. Someone with money can buy the unit I rent, and, given it's private property there is no reason in the world they should not be able to move in --we're not at the stage of confiscating property. Traffic throughput is different [unless you are comparing it to the toll express lanes]. Normal highways have no barrier to entry other than the vehicle you need to enter with anyway, so of course people will take whichever way gets you there faster. If before you had to take the 2-hour bus, or the surface streets which took two hours, but now you can take the freeway which takes an hour, all things being equal you take the freeway... Now, if you had to pay a toll to get on the freeway AND there was also public transit which was cheaper, you might take public transit. The sad thing is politicians on either side ignore economics when it benefits their point of view or it aligns themselves with the ignorance of the people they represent [climate change, fiscal policy, housing, jobs policies, etc] so I'm under no illusions this report by the state gov't[1] will convince city supes. [1]http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345 http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345