3 ms·

While this might be a tangent to your larger point, I personally struggle when arguing about housing in California, in particular. Yes, supply might be low and

While this might be a tangent to your larger point, I personally struggle when arguing about housing in California, in particular. Yes, supply might be low and more aggressive construction could do wonders for more affordable pricing, I have no disagreement with that. (And as a low-income retail worker in SoCal, I would certainly welcome that relief!) But at the same time, I see basic limits in our water supply, and less absolute constraints in the crowding around a handful of urban hubs, and wonder if more housing is truly a good idea, or if we might already be near the practical limits on capacity for the geography/hydrology and geometry we're working with.

clairity 6y ago
we're not anywhere close to the natural limits, as we have plenty of technology and policy we could implement yet around resources like clean water, air, energy, and even space. the primary reason we don't is cost, both for externalities and for the remedies themselves. the 50-year plan for LA (the city) from about 50 years ago was projecting something like 7-8 million residents being housed here by now with basically the same current infrastructure. instead, we've only grown from 3 to 4 million in that time, largely because of various restrictions on development (zoning, prop 13, etc.). note that LA city is ~470 sq mi, in contrast to NYC which is twice the population and ~300 sq mi.