3 ms·
It is actually counter to house owners' interests to block further development. 1. Their children won't be able to continue to live in the area once they beco
by linkregister 10y ago
It is actually counter to house owners' interests to block further development.
1. Their children won't be able to continue to live in the area once they become adults (unless they get lucky with a high-income job).
2. If they ever want to down-size and move into a smaller house or apartment after retirement, it won't be economically viable since the smaller place will still be expensive. The only way to adjust to a fixed income is to relocate.
Most communities don't do this. It's endemic to California due to the legislation noted in the article. It's rational for Mountain View to restrict housing and promote office space because it's the only way it can afford to keep tax revenue high enough to provide public services.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoI'm unsure which Boomers you've interacted with, but anecdotally, the ones I've talked to a) don't care if their kids can live where they grew up and b) they plan on selling their home for as much as they can get for it and then move to a low tax, low cost of living area when they retire/downsize (some to Florida, some to Central America [either Panama or Belize], one person to Thailand). This is to be expected when you have no defined benefit/pension plans in the US anymore, very few people saved enough for retirement on their own, your social security benefit is anemic, and your home is your most valuable asset. One might argue everyone should save more (they should!), but that's of course going to drag GDP down (can't win). YMMV. Frankly, I feel like we've brought this on as a country ourselves. Dog eat dog catches up.
- linkregister 10y agoThis notion of moving to low-cost countries or regions is the vast minority of retired persons. Most stay where their friends and family reside.