2 ms·
So you're saying you don't believe that an affordable unit has twice the displacement-fighting power of a market-rate unit? If so, what's the basis for this be
by raldi 10y ago
So you're saying you don't believe that an affordable unit has twice the displacement-fighting power of a market-rate unit?
If so, what's the basis for this belief? Have you read the study I linked to, which concludes otherwise? If so, what part of its reasoning do you contest?
- AnthonyMouse 10y agoThe flaw is scale. If you build one market rate unit (or ten or a hundred) then you get displacement, because the price of the market rate units remain too high for low income people to afford. You need to build a million.
- raldi 10y agoActually, just building 111,000 (increasing the city's supply by 30%) would cut housing costs in half. Source: http://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employment-construction-and-cost-of-san.html http://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employmen...
- JoshTriplett 10y agoAs far as I can tell, the model shown here doesn't seem to take supply and demand into account when calculating the price of the resulting housing.
- enf 10y agoWhat do you mean? The model is nothing but rent=demand/supply with an attempt to figure out what weights go on these parameters. What would you do differently? (Author of blog post here.)
- foobarqux 10y agoUnrelated: Why is the wages coefficient negative and large in your regression?
- JoshTriplett 10y agoIt may be that it's just not obvious what the individual rent values are in the model, and that they do go down when the supply goes up. The only numbers visibly shown in the model are the number of units, the tax revenue, and the number of "affordable units"; the model doesn't display the expected distribution of rents, or the actual threshold for "affordable". As a result, it's hard to see how the parameters actually affect individual rents. For the primary target audience (city planners), this makes sense.
- enf 10y agoOh, sorry, I thought you meant my (price) model, not the Berkeley (production) model!