3 ms·

>Sure. Wealthy people can lower their standards and take housing meant for the class below That's the point though, if the housing is actually low rent the wea

>Sure. Wealthy people can lower their standards and take housing meant for the class below That's the point though, if the housing is actually low rent the wealthy can't just 'take it.' Some wealthy people will get apartments but so will some poor, that's definitely better than building high rent housing which only wealthy people will have a shot at. >With sufficient heights, the problem is addressable through infill development on commercial/industrial properties So you're gonna move the poor to industrial sections... This is just a reinforcement of what I said. >and upzoning to permit mid-rises in predominately owner-occupier single-family house zones. You're going to go into neighborhoods and throw up large buildings filled with low rent housing? In your dreams you're going to. >The Bay Area's housing deficit over 2012-2017 is conservatively... I think you misunderstand. I'm talking about housing which is affordable for the poor - subsidized housing, rent controls and the like. Housing for well to do techies is of secondary importance.

closeparen 9y ago
>if the housing is actually low rent the wealthy can't just 'take it.' The only buildings which are permanently carved out for low- and middle-income households are those built as permanently affordable. You are actively hostile to accelerating the construction of such buildings, so this statement is just bizarre. Of course you can spend less than your maximum budget. Do you imagine that rich people can't buy economy cars? With demand so far exceeding supply, all other housing (regardless of its quality or who previously occupied it) becomes "for" the well-to-do given enough time. Leases end, the units maybe get renovated a bit, and the new occupants are wealthier and whiter and paying more. Not caring about "techies" doesn't remove the effect of a population boom from the market. People are wildly overthinking this. Adding N + 1 households to N homes is certainly going to cause a problem, by the pigeonhole principle.

closeparen 9y ago

>if the housing is actually low rent the wealthy can't just 'take it.' The only buildings which are permanently carved out for low- and middle-income households are those built as permanently affordable. You are actively hostile to accelerating the construction of such buildings, so this statement is just bizarre. Of course you can spend less than your maximum budget. Do you imagine that rich people can't buy economy cars? With demand so far exceeding supply, all other housing (regardless of its quality or who previously occupied it) becomes "for" the well-to-do given enough time. Leases end, the units maybe get renovated a bit, and the new occupants are wealthier and whiter and paying more. Not caring about "techies" doesn't remove the effect of a population boom from the market. People are wildly overthinking this. Adding N + 1 households to N homes is certainly going to cause a problem, by the pigeonhole principle.