3 ms·
I read the findings you're summarizing differently. Insane prices already indicate that a market is completely defective. Correcting that condition requires,
by mjevans 8y ago
I read the findings you're summarizing differently. Insane prices already indicate that a market is completely defective.
Correcting that condition requires, as noted in the figures, ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE difference in either the demand or supply.
When rents are that crazy there will be an already displaced mass that isn't seen in the focus area of study; the market needs radical, organized, and planned (at least in the broad strokes) re-classification and re-organization of zones.
As a very rough back of the napkin approach, which an actual expert would probably have better initial numbers for, examine the quantity of jobs in the area. To approximate for youth, students, retirees, and the unemployed; double that figure.
(Est) NUM_RESIDENTS ~= 2 * JOBS
Then assume by the time you actually get things fixed the problem will have gotten even worse. So target the overshoot at an additional 25 to 50 percent.
Also, require distribution of housing VERY ROUGHLY according to actual census data of demographics. Just based on the cost of rent I'd say NO PLACE builds enough housing for singles nor enough for 'large families' (not in houses).
- epistasis 8y agoYes, this model is not super informative, but I think it does put a lower bound. Also, I'm not sure which figures you're refereeing to for "order of magnitude", but recall that their "percentage of supply" change is a percentage of a PUMA, a mere 100,000 person district, not of the whole area. So even holding everything constant in the Bay, and assuming people will move places they would actually never move, a mere 5,000 housing units in one PUMA still makes a difference. Totally agreed about the need to balance zoning more.