3 ms·
Well yes, but if it was THAT simple (as those things have to, generally, be voted on by elected representatives) then it would have been done already. But yes,
by abritinthebay 10y ago
Well yes, but if it was THAT simple (as those things have to, generally, be voted on by elected representatives) then it would have been done already.
But yes, that's the real solution: and it's not happening at all in the Bay Area.
The Bay is 40,000 units under what it would take to level prices (not reduce, level) and people are still protesting "ruining the character of neighborhoods" by building.
I get wanting character or style... but legislate that, not less density.
- jrockway 10y ago"ruining the character of their overperforming investments" is what they should say. But yeah, this is where regulation is needed, because the financial incentives are to let the market saturate like it is now. If you own property and rent it out, you certainly don't have to keep it well-maintained. What is your tennant going to do, move out? To where? I'm almost tired enough of this situation to move away from New York. (I say after installing my window A/C units this morning. What year is it!?)
- abritinthebay 10y agoI'm a little more charitable about it than that - neighborhoods often do have a certain character and vibe. Putting a really ugly or cheap building in the middle can ruin that. It's great when large building projects take style and such into account as it makes the neighborhood nicer AND the new building nicer, usually. I'm in that situation with a new shopping center just a few blocks from me: it's going to be really nice and add to the area while still being a massive new set of buildings and stores. However people are dumb and selfish so often have a kneejerk reaction and try to block any development for arbitrary reasons (like height)