Limiting the supply of urban housing makes the displacement problem worse, not better. As long as the demand for housing far outstrips the supply, only the affl

Limiting the supply of urban housing makes the displacement problem worse, not better. As long as the demand for housing far outstrips the supply, only the affluent will be able to afford to live in desirable places like Berkeley. We need more market rate and below market rate housing. While below market rate housing has the greatest impact, both help reduce displacement [1]. Realistically though, there's no way Berkeley can produce enough BMR to fix this problem with existing funding sources. According to the 2015 Nexus study, a household of 3 making 100% of AMI (area median income) can't afford market rate rents and the situation is far worse for families looking to buy a modest house or condo. Local YIMBY groups like East Bay Forward, YIMBY Action and SF BARF support the construction of both market rate and below market rate. They have on occasion opposed increases in the BMR requirements for new housing, but that was out of concern that the new requirements were so high that substantially less housing would be built and the absolute number of BMR numbers would in fact be lower. While not conclusive, some early indications suggest this concern was warranted [2]. [1] http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345 http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345 [2] https://medium.com/@LocalPolitics/the-25-inclusionary-rate-is-killing-affordable-housing-db143c4abd31 https://medium.com/@LocalPolitics/the-25-inclusionary-rate-i...