3 ms·
Does't that mean we should be constantly building more, and the problem right now is because building has not kept up with demand? So, maybe this isn't a soluti
by mangodrunk 10y ago
Does't that mean we should be constantly building more, and the problem right now is because building has not kept up with demand? So, maybe this isn't a solution for today, but it seems like a good solution for a couple of years from now. And a stop gap would need to be put in place, such as removing the tax incentives you mentioned to lower demand in the mean time.
- timr 10y agoUh...don't look now, but SF is building more. You can't throw a stone in the city without hitting a new construction project, and there's something like 80,000 more projects in the pipeline. And I'll wager that many of those won't even be completed, because the market is beginning to soften at the high end due to oversupply: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-01/apartment-owners-fall-as-nyc-san-francisco-rents-seen-softening http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-01/apartment-... http://sf.curbed.com/2016/7/12/12163544/san-francisco-rent-price-decrease http://sf.curbed.com/2016/7/12/12163544/san-francisco-rent-p... That's what's so irrational about this debate: the construction market may be inefficient on the margins, but it's basically functioning as you would expect. The "build up" crowd has a poor understanding of the practical impacts of their proposals, and the "affordable housing only" crowd has a poor understanding of local real estate economics. Meanwhile, everyone ignores the elephant in the room.