> speculating on a continued housing shortage (and hence consistently high housing prices) is a surefire bet if the housing supply never increases. Two importa

> speculating on a continued housing shortage (and hence consistently high housing prices) is a surefire bet if the housing supply never increases. Two important concepts about this. The first is that in places like SF, those making the speculation are also the ones that dominate the elections. Figure that SF has a high amount of renters, of the which many are foreigners that can't vote. That shows a skewed and corrupt political system. Second, that such a ploy of decreasing housing shortage is economically inefficient, and thus makes the whole poorer. In an efficient system, the more housing, the more people, the more services and tax income and everybody wins. So how can the home-owners be benefitted more if the pie shrinks than if it grows? Its the tax system that double punishes renters and prizes landlords. SF spends 2,600U$S a month per household. If the city levied its taxes on land instead, it would literally eat up all the rental prices of land, and housing would be worth next to nothing: but because instaed it punishes workers coming into the city with sales taxes, and companies with corporate taxes, landlords actually get a double pay: they get paid by the renters twice.