3 ms·

Our laws facilitate the leaching of labor to land owners (feudalism). If it were easier to build a surplus of housing, this wouldn't be such an issue but betwee

Our laws facilitate the leaching of labor to land owners (feudalism). If it were easier to build a surplus of housing, this wouldn't be such an issue but between NIMBYism, zoning, local municipal red tape, and the near zero incentive from developers to build inexpensive housing units in mass quantities near urban centers, than this issue will remain siphoning any surplus of wealth from labor in cities (Silicon Valley, NYC, etc). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10442929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10442929

jackcosgrove 11y ago
Restrictions on construction and density drive the housing crisis in the Bay Area more than the desirability of the area or the economic opportunities, in my opinion. For example, if you can fetch a salary in Austin that is similar to one in San Jose, then opportunities between the two cities are the same. If you can live in a cool neighborhood in Brooklyn that has the same amenities as one in SF, then desirability is the same. The difference is that Austin has far fewer restrictions on development, geographical and legal, than SV. In the second case Brooklyn has far more legacy housing units than SF. In both cases the supply of housing is more in line with demand. The high cost of housing in the Bay Area is partly due to geographical limitations, partly due to the attractiveness of the area and its amenities, partly due to economic opportunities, partly due to speculation, and lastly partly due to restrictive zoning and development laws. One of these five factors - which are not exhaustive - is much easier to rectify than the others. Reforming common law property rights, which is what the land tax proposes, is much, much harder than reforming local laws against density and development.

jackcosgrove 11y ago

Restrictions on construction and density drive the housing crisis in the Bay Area more than the desirability of the area or the economic opportunities, in my opinion. For example, if you can fetch a salary in Austin that is similar to one in San Jose, then opportunities between the two cities are the same. If you can live in a cool neighborhood in Brooklyn that has the same amenities as one in SF, then desirability is the same. The difference is that Austin has far fewer restrictions on development, geographical and legal, than SV. In the second case Brooklyn has far more legacy housing units than SF. In both cases the supply of housing is more in line with demand. The high cost of housing in the Bay Area is partly due to geographical limitations, partly due to the attractiveness of the area and its amenities, partly due to economic opportunities, partly due to speculation, and lastly partly due to restrictive zoning and development laws. One of these five factors - which are not exhaustive - is much easier to rectify than the others. Reforming common law property rights, which is what the land tax proposes, is much, much harder than reforming local laws against density and development.