4 ms·

Well... yes, this problem has been developing for a long long time, over the last 50 years CA has been restricting supply ever more, like those WWII frog experi

Well... yes, this problem has been developing for a long long time, over the last 50 years CA has been restricting supply ever more, like those WWII frog experiments where they boiled water very slowly to see if the frogs would jump out. Some of those frogs jumped out and some died out. Now, we're facing the same dilema in SF. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to lower the temperature. Every last apartment or house can help. We desperately need as much housing of every type we can possibly get. I don't understand how anyone with a conscience can continue to advocate for "character" with the current housing crisis. And, why are people concerned if a developer makes a profit. If people are starving, you dont say, geez we better not grow any more food lest those pesky farmers make a profit. If developers are making too large profits, then more will enter and we'll have even more housing which will lower the prices even more.

astazangasta 8y ago
No, this problem appeared acutely starting in 2008. When I moved to SF, rents were not exorbitant; they were high, but ordinary people could pay them. Then they climbed dramatically in a short period. This is easy to ascertain; just look at any graph of rents. This graph has no relation to the graphs for new construction or population growth, both of which grow at a steady pace. This is an acute crisis caused by a spike in demand due to the sudden inflow of new wealth, not by a supply constraint. When one person can buy up every house in the Mission, the supply side of the equation is not as relevant as the demand size. This is blindingly obvious, and only some serious denial seems to be preventing people from acknowledging this. As for concern over whether developers are making a profit; apparently you have never read any history of redevelopment. Here is a good place for you to start, learn something about your own city: https://hoodline.com/2016/01/how-urban-renewal-destroyed-the-fillmore-in-order-to-save-it https://hoodline.com/2016/01/how-urban-renewal-destroyed-the... What will happen, over and over, is poor people will be moved out, rich people will move in, and developers will make a profit. Your econ 101 fantasy will not take place.
- ubercow13 8y ago
  Why would that speculative new capital be interested in the property if not because they know there is a supply constraint?

astazangasta 8y ago

No, this problem appeared acutely starting in 2008. When I moved to SF, rents were not exorbitant; they were high, but ordinary people could pay them. Then they climbed dramatically in a short period. This is easy to ascertain; just look at any graph of rents. This graph has no relation to the graphs for new construction or population growth, both of which grow at a steady pace. This is an acute crisis caused by a spike in demand due to the sudden inflow of new wealth, not by a supply constraint. When one person can buy up every house in the Mission, the supply side of the equation is not as relevant as the demand size. This is blindingly obvious, and only some serious denial seems to be preventing people from acknowledging this. As for concern over whether developers are making a profit; apparently you have never read any history of redevelopment. Here is a good place for you to start, learn something about your own city: https://hoodline.com/2016/01/how-urban-renewal-destroyed-the-fillmore-in-order-to-save-it https://hoodline.com/2016/01/how-urban-renewal-destroyed-the... What will happen, over and over, is poor people will be moved out, rich people will move in, and developers will make a profit. Your econ 101 fantasy will not take place.

ubercow13 8y ago
Why would that speculative new capital be interested in the property if not because they know there is a supply constraint?