4 ms·
This is mostly the result of the severe underdevelopment of new housing in the last 20 or 30 years, due to neighborhoods preventing any sort of development to s
by acheron9383 9y ago
This is mostly the result of the severe underdevelopment of new housing in the last 20 or 30 years, due to neighborhoods preventing any sort of development to stymy gentrification. The situation is made worse by the disincentivisaiton of selling any property because of Prop 13. Why would you ever move if your property taxes would increase by an order of magnitude? All the market distortion has led to predictable outcomes, the new tech employees living in the old crappy housing for exorbitant rents, and the poor pushed onto the streets.
- chk_ur_autism 9y agoThe lack of new building is not to stymy gentrification, it's rent seeking/protectionism of existing assets. Nearly everyone in the Bay who owns a home has sunk a significant portion (likely greater than 75% of their wealth) into their wood-and-drywall tickytack shack. They'll protect it by rejecting new housing at all costs.
- gt_ 9y agoI’m not very familiar with Prop 13, but can speak for situations in Oregon which seem quite different. Maybe prop 13 is why. Quickly surging economies create active markets which encourage owners to sell, renovations to happen, and old tenants to be removed for the purpose of raising rent. In Portland in the past 3-4 years, there were quite a few studies done on how this happens and how it is especially risky in places with less families because those left without housing suddenly often have no place to run to. Going back to your point about Prop 13, the Portland issues I just described seem to be recovering by a lot in the last 6 months. I am pretty sure it wasn’t necessarily because of new building though, because the new building in Portland is nearly all luxury condos.