4 ms·

The problems facing housing are regulatory in nature. We don't need a savior from the investor class. We just need to make it legal to build more housing. Ther

The problems facing housing are regulatory in nature. We don't need a savior from the investor class. We just need to make it legal to build more housing. There is nothing confusing about it. There's no difficult problem that needs outside-the-box solutions. It's currently illegal to build as much housing as we need. Make it not illegal.

JTbane 8y ago
The problem is that owners of property want their holdings to increase in value, so they will always torpedo any laws that would make it easier to build affordable housing.
kindatrue 8y ago
Voters (who generally skew towards homeowners) unsurprisingly hate more housing. It's like half the tweets on https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv Also, in California, building more housing is a net negative for city finances due to Prop 13 (1978) passed by citizens.
- bradlys 8y ago
  Wow - it was so obvious even then that it was a disaster. https://twitter.com/hanlonbt/status/1010931561879953408 https://twitter.com/hanlonbt/status/1010931561879953408 Got that from reading nextdoorsv. (Enlightening account...)
carapace 8y ago
In the San Francisco Bay Area you could remove all legal and social barriers to development and the best you could do would be running-to-stay-in-the-same-place. "Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments" https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employment-construction-and-cost-of-san.html https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employme... > Building enough housing to roll back prices to the "good old days" is probably not realistic, because the necessary construction rates were never achieved even when planning and zoning were considerably less restrictive than they are now. Building enough to compensate for the growing economy is a somewhat more realistic goal and would keep things from getting worse. - - - - - I'm a Bucky Fuller fanboy. One of his ideas was factory-built helicopter-delivered homes that installed on a single mast (low site prep costs) and had all plumbing, electrical, kitchen, etc. pre-installed. You could roll out a neighborhood in less time than it takes to build one regular house. He was stymied by resistance from the construction industry, they didn't want to see their jobs vanish in a puff of automated efficiency. At one point they were going to require all the innards of these "Dymaxion Houses" to be installed on-site just to make work for the crews. Our problem isn't that we need a technological savior, we already had one! Our problem is that we won't apply what we already have to efficiently solve our problems. Did you know that early light-bulbs didn't burn out? There's a bulb in Livermore that has been lit for one hundred and seventeen years.[1] Modern light bulb break because they are built to. This kind of b.s. is all around us. We're living well below our possibilities as a species. [1] http://centennialbulb.org/ http://centennialbulb.org/

JTbane 8y ago

The problem is that owners of property want their holdings to increase in value, so they will always torpedo any laws that would make it easier to build affordable housing.

kindatrue 8y ago

Voters (who generally skew towards homeowners) unsurprisingly hate more housing. It's like half the tweets on https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv Also, in California, building more housing is a net negative for city finances due to Prop 13 (1978) passed by citizens.

bradlys 8y ago
Wow - it was so obvious even then that it was a disaster. https://twitter.com/hanlonbt/status/1010931561879953408 https://twitter.com/hanlonbt/status/1010931561879953408 Got that from reading nextdoorsv. (Enlightening account...)

carapace 8y ago

In the San Francisco Bay Area you could remove all legal and social barriers to development and the best you could do would be running-to-stay-in-the-same-place. "Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments" https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employment-construction-and-cost-of-san.html https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employme... > Building enough housing to roll back prices to the "good old days" is probably not realistic, because the necessary construction rates were never achieved even when planning and zoning were considerably less restrictive than they are now. Building enough to compensate for the growing economy is a somewhat more realistic goal and would keep things from getting worse. - - - - - I'm a Bucky Fuller fanboy. One of his ideas was factory-built helicopter-delivered homes that installed on a single mast (low site prep costs) and had all plumbing, electrical, kitchen, etc. pre-installed. You could roll out a neighborhood in less time than it takes to build one regular house. He was stymied by resistance from the construction industry, they didn't want to see their jobs vanish in a puff of automated efficiency. At one point they were going to require all the innards of these "Dymaxion Houses" to be installed on-site just to make work for the crews. Our problem isn't that we need a technological savior, we already had one! Our problem is that we won't apply what we already have to efficiently solve our problems. Did you know that early light-bulbs didn't burn out? There's a bulb in Livermore that has been lit for one hundred and seventeen years.[1] Modern light bulb break because they are built to. This kind of b.s. is all around us. We're living well below our possibilities as a species. [1] http://centennialbulb.org/ http://centennialbulb.org/