3 ms·
I don't disagree on your 2nd and 3rd points, but the first point could use a [citation needed]. I live in SV, so I certainly understand there are areas with "ar
by rconti 8y ago
I don't disagree on your 2nd and 3rd points, but the first point could use a [citation needed]. I live in SV, so I certainly understand there are areas with "artificial restrictions", but I'm not sure it's a major factor, let alone the primary factor. (I mean, yes, if we stacked the entire Peninsula with wall-to-wall tiny houses, the problem would be "solved", but that doesn't prove that this would happen on its own even without restrictive zoning).
Income inequality and the falling prices, in real terms, of virtually everything the upper-middle-class-and-above need to live their lives, means there is more spare money to allocate towards housing, bidding housing costs up.
In a world where food and clothing is cheaper than ever to "most of us", why not pay those rising costs, thus bidding prices ever higher?
- pchristensen 8y agoThere's so much room between the present built environment and "stacking the entire Peninsula with wall-to-wall tiny houses" - that's a false dichotomy that prevents taking any action. Supply and demand are both part of the solution - you're correct that in a desirable area like the Bay Area with wealthy industries, people will have more money to spend on housing. But increasing housing construction by 4x would make a huge difference but still mean fewer new units per year than San Antonio.
- rconti 8y agoI'm not presenting it as a false dichotomy between "do nothing" and "stack the entire Peninsula with wall-to-wall tiny houses". I'm presenting the latter option as an example that the most extreme, non-realistic course of action would not occur even absent the regulatory environment. Obviously every additional unit places a very slight downward pressure on housing prices, I just disagree that regulation is a primary factor at play here.