4 ms·

>If California wants to lower their housing prices, they need to have supply match demand. To do that, they need 50 story buildings. A lot of them. And they nee

>If California wants to lower their housing prices, they need to have supply match demand. To do that, they need 50 story buildings. A lot of them. And they need to start soon, because they take years to build. The thing about California is that people who live in the nicer parts of California are not trying to get anywhere. They are not trying to get richer, they are not trying to work hard to get somewhere else, they've made it. They don't need opportunity that comes with growth. They like their lifestyle, their open spaces and their prop 13 and they're going to keep it that way. Right now, there are huge amounts of very valuable land that are owned by open space trusts that will never be developed even though they are collectively worth billions. The point I'm trying to make is that, especially for people who live well in Northern and Southern California, there are some things that are more important than making another hundred million dollars and limiting development is one of them.

intopieces 10y ago
I look for you, or someone like you, in ever thread about California housing. It's the person who refuses to let the 'it's simple supply and demand' meme go unchecked. This is not about supply and demand. The politicians who deal with land-use regulation didn't "fail econ 101" as the assertion usually goes. The fact is, we are dealing with many different groups of people whose interests cannot be sufficiently explained by economics. It's more abstract than that. So let's please stop repeat "it's just simple supply and demand" like it somehow illuminates the issue to a degree not previously seen.
- hx87 10y ago
  I'm confused. > It's the person who refuses to let the 'it's simple supply and demand' meme go unchecked. So the parent poster wants to debunk the 'it's simple supply and demand' meme? > This is not about supply and demand. So you're disagreeing with the parent poster, and saying that it's not about supply and demand, and thus implying that the parent poster said it's about supply and demand? Well, which one is it?
- jtuente 10y ago
  That's still supply and demand though. You're simply giving a reason that isn't government regulation for more buildings that aren't going up.
- morgante 10y ago
  Economically, it's absolutely still just "supply and demand." 'narrator provides a solid explanation of why there's not political interest in balancing supply and demand at a lower price. Even if the politics is complicated, it's still a textbook case of government regulation limiting supply.
  - intopieces 10y ago
    But if we're going to get a picture of the situation and possibly solve it, we have to go beyond economics. We have to go beyond treating anyone who doesn't reduce the complexity of the situation to 'econ 101' as someone who just 'doesn't get it'. That's plainly disingenuous and makes the discussion downright boring. There is no one on this board that doesn't understand that more people with more money wanting a thing that there are few of drives up the price. Some of us would rather move on to the complex interlocking and ever changing conditions - political, sometimes, and sometimes just strange human weaknesses or predilections -- instead of rehashing old arguments that conveniently skirt the hard stuff just to score points.
    - epistasis 10y ago
      >There is no one on this board that doesn't understand that more people with more money wanting a thing that there are few of drives up the price. Based on your previous comment, you seemed to be doing exactly what you say nobody on this board does. >Some of us would rather move on to the complex interlocking and ever changing conditions - political, sometimes, and sometimes just strange human weaknesses or predilections -- instead of rehashing old arguments that conveniently skirt the hard stuff just to score points. And narrator went into those political/human conditions, yet you reduced his comment to a "supply demand checkbox." Though you found his comment disingenuous, it seems that you are not bothering to read his comment; and the only thing you've provided to the conversation is: it's supply/demand plus other interlocking conditions.
    - morgante 10y ago
      > There is no one on this board that doesn't understand that more people with more money wanting a thing that there are few of drives up the price. Look in this very thread and you will find people who insist that allowing development would somehow cause prices to rise and for people to be forced out of their homes.
davidw 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawbridge_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawbridge_mentality describes the situation, in part. They've got what they want, and they do not want to share it with the riff raff.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  It's not that they don't want to share it, it's that they don't want it to change. If you live in a peaceful, quiet neighborhood, you don't want huge buildings going up, ruining your landscape, bringing more traffic, and basically changing everything you liked about the area when you moved there.
  - davidw 10y ago
    Because when they moved there, they contributed none of those negative things... http://cityobservatory.org/the-immaculate-conception-theory-of-your-neighborhoods-origins/ http://cityobservatory.org/the-immaculate-conception-theory-... This is exactly what "drawbridge mentality" means.
- matwood 10y ago
  There is an island beach town near where I live. It has a very nice beach and a nice little main street with good, fun restaurants. It used to be a great place to spend the day. Every house on the island is $1M+. Now the residents have gotten the town to remove parking from the island to the point where it is impossible the visit. They literally have a drawbridge, and would love to only let owners onto the island.
hx87 10y ago
> and limiting development is one of them Then they can do something that will make everyone happy: tax the crap out of the companies that bring in the flood of money, and make them leave. Limited development and lower prices. Everyone wins!
beachstartup 10y ago
a lot of those who 'made it' are actually cashing out of their real estate and moving north, or east. they end up with a bigger house, less taxes, more cash in the bank. with climate change, oregon and colorado will be just like california in 10 years anyway! as for texas and its droughts and carpetbaggers... well, it'll be even more california than california.
- davidw 10y ago
  They're already moving to Oregon. And it's having a ripple effect in places like Portland and even here in Bend. Some of it's good in that there are more people to work here, and more people interested in investing, and so on. But in terms of housing, it's problematic.

intopieces 10y ago

I look for you, or someone like you, in ever thread about California housing. It's the person who refuses to let the 'it's simple supply and demand' meme go unchecked. This is not about supply and demand. The politicians who deal with land-use regulation didn't "fail econ 101" as the assertion usually goes. The fact is, we are dealing with many different groups of people whose interests cannot be sufficiently explained by economics. It's more abstract than that. So let's please stop repeat "it's just simple supply and demand" like it somehow illuminates the issue to a degree not previously seen.

hx87 10y ago
I'm confused. > It's the person who refuses to let the 'it's simple supply and demand' meme go unchecked. So the parent poster wants to debunk the 'it's simple supply and demand' meme? > This is not about supply and demand. So you're disagreeing with the parent poster, and saying that it's not about supply and demand, and thus implying that the parent poster said it's about supply and demand? Well, which one is it?
jtuente 10y ago
That's still supply and demand though. You're simply giving a reason that isn't government regulation for more buildings that aren't going up.
morgante 10y ago
Economically, it's absolutely still just "supply and demand." 'narrator provides a solid explanation of why there's not political interest in balancing supply and demand at a lower price. Even if the politics is complicated, it's still a textbook case of government regulation limiting supply.
- intopieces 10y ago
  But if we're going to get a picture of the situation and possibly solve it, we have to go beyond economics. We have to go beyond treating anyone who doesn't reduce the complexity of the situation to 'econ 101' as someone who just 'doesn't get it'. That's plainly disingenuous and makes the discussion downright boring. There is no one on this board that doesn't understand that more people with more money wanting a thing that there are few of drives up the price. Some of us would rather move on to the complex interlocking and ever changing conditions - political, sometimes, and sometimes just strange human weaknesses or predilections -- instead of rehashing old arguments that conveniently skirt the hard stuff just to score points.
  - epistasis 10y ago
    >There is no one on this board that doesn't understand that more people with more money wanting a thing that there are few of drives up the price. Based on your previous comment, you seemed to be doing exactly what you say nobody on this board does. >Some of us would rather move on to the complex interlocking and ever changing conditions - political, sometimes, and sometimes just strange human weaknesses or predilections -- instead of rehashing old arguments that conveniently skirt the hard stuff just to score points. And narrator went into those political/human conditions, yet you reduced his comment to a "supply demand checkbox." Though you found his comment disingenuous, it seems that you are not bothering to read his comment; and the only thing you've provided to the conversation is: it's supply/demand plus other interlocking conditions.
  - morgante 10y ago
    > There is no one on this board that doesn't understand that more people with more money wanting a thing that there are few of drives up the price. Look in this very thread and you will find people who insist that allowing development would somehow cause prices to rise and for people to be forced out of their homes.

davidw 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawbridge_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawbridge_mentality describes the situation, in part. They've got what they want, and they do not want to share it with the riff raff.

st3v3r 10y ago
It's not that they don't want to share it, it's that they don't want it to change. If you live in a peaceful, quiet neighborhood, you don't want huge buildings going up, ruining your landscape, bringing more traffic, and basically changing everything you liked about the area when you moved there.
- davidw 10y ago
  Because when they moved there, they contributed none of those negative things... http://cityobservatory.org/the-immaculate-conception-theory-of-your-neighborhoods-origins/ http://cityobservatory.org/the-immaculate-conception-theory-... This is exactly what "drawbridge mentality" means.
matwood 10y ago
There is an island beach town near where I live. It has a very nice beach and a nice little main street with good, fun restaurants. It used to be a great place to spend the day. Every house on the island is $1M+. Now the residents have gotten the town to remove parking from the island to the point where it is impossible the visit. They literally have a drawbridge, and would love to only let owners onto the island.

hx87 10y ago

> and limiting development is one of them Then they can do something that will make everyone happy: tax the crap out of the companies that bring in the flood of money, and make them leave. Limited development and lower prices. Everyone wins!

beachstartup 10y ago

a lot of those who 'made it' are actually cashing out of their real estate and moving north, or east. they end up with a bigger house, less taxes, more cash in the bank. with climate change, oregon and colorado will be just like california in 10 years anyway! as for texas and its droughts and carpetbaggers... well, it'll be even more california than california.

davidw 10y ago
They're already moving to Oregon. And it's having a ripple effect in places like Portland and even here in Bend. Some of it's good in that there are more people to work here, and more people interested in investing, and so on. But in terms of housing, it's problematic.