4 ms·
> "More housing" does not automatically translate to "affordable housing" Imagine two hypothetical cites, each with one million residents. The first one has ha
by fbonetti 7y ago
> "More housing" does not automatically translate to "affordable housing"
Imagine two hypothetical cites, each with one million residents. The first one has half a million apartments, while the second one has ten million apartments.
Which city would have cheaper apartments?
- Jweb_Guru 7y agoWhat city are you imagining where ten million apartments would be built with no demand for them? I'm assuming the city with ten million apartments and half a million residents is economically depressed, since that many apartments were clearly built for a much larger number of people. Here's a better question: under a realistic model of building, where building slows down when landlords and property owners feel they have maximized the profit they will get out of it, by what date do you think housing prices will be low enough that current residents who rely on rent control to stay in SF will be able to live there again? 2025? 2035? 2050? What is your recommendation for those people in the meantime?
- matchbok 7y agoNobody is entitled to live in posh neighborhoods. That is a false argument.
- Jweb_Guru 7y agoYou don't see any reason why it might be worse for someone who lives in an area, and already has a life there, to be kicked out, than it would be for someone else not to be able to move in?
- matchbok 7y agoThe biggest bargaining chip a renter has is the ability to leave. If the housing market is functioning correctly then renters should have the upper hand and these issues don't matter. Nobody is "kicked" out because nobody has an intrinsic right to live in a particular neighborhood. Arguing such a thing is in complete opposition to a free market.