3 ms·

"Value" is just another way to say it is a nice neighborhood. If only number of available housing units is your concern, then why not simply build them elsewhe

"Value" is just another way to say it is a nice neighborhood. If only number of available housing units is your concern, then why not simply build them elsewhere?

wbsss4412 5y ago
>"Value" is just another way to say it is a nice neighborhood. Only if you deliberately take my words out of context. I was talking about increase the value of an investment, which is purely a function of supply and demand. Creating unnecessary scarcity by capping supply benefits no one other than the wallets of a small few.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  "Unnecessary scarcity" - in what sense unnecessary? And you can build housing elsewhere, I don't think artificial scarcity is really a good argument.
madeofpalk 5y ago
Like Not In My Backyard?
wbsss4412 5y ago
Location isn’t fungible, people generally need to be geographically located close to their work, family, etc. What makes more sense, for the state of California to massively increase teachers salaries just so they can afford a basic house, or allow yourself to have a few more neighbors? At this point it’s pretty obvious what your answer will be so consider that a rhetorical question.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  You don't need that many teachers if you limit how many families can live in an area. In any case, if it doesn't matter that the neighborhood is nice, surely you can find some crappy part of town to build a skyscraper.
- stryker7001 5y ago
  Ive seen this 'people need to live near work' argument, but I don't know what its based on. If a teacher has to commute an hour, they will commute an hour. If a bartender has to commute, they will commute. Wouldn't it be better to make transportation cheaper and easier to use? That way people could live where they can afford, and still work in another place. I don't understand why people have to subsidize someone living close to their job.

"Value" is just another way to say it is a nice neighborhood. If only number of available housing units is your concern, then why not simply build them elsewhere?

wbsss4412 5y ago

>"Value" is just another way to say it is a nice neighborhood. Only if you deliberately take my words out of context. I was talking about increase the value of an investment, which is purely a function of supply and demand. Creating unnecessary scarcity by capping supply benefits no one other than the wallets of a small few.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
"Unnecessary scarcity" - in what sense unnecessary? And you can build housing elsewhere, I don't think artificial scarcity is really a good argument.

madeofpalk 5y ago

Like Not In My Backyard?

wbsss4412 5y ago

Location isn’t fungible, people generally need to be geographically located close to their work, family, etc. What makes more sense, for the state of California to massively increase teachers salaries just so they can afford a basic house, or allow yourself to have a few more neighbors? At this point it’s pretty obvious what your answer will be so consider that a rhetorical question.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
You don't need that many teachers if you limit how many families can live in an area. In any case, if it doesn't matter that the neighborhood is nice, surely you can find some crappy part of town to build a skyscraper.
stryker7001 5y ago
Ive seen this 'people need to live near work' argument, but I don't know what its based on. If a teacher has to commute an hour, they will commute an hour. If a bartender has to commute, they will commute. Wouldn't it be better to make transportation cheaper and easier to use? That way people could live where they can afford, and still work in another place. I don't understand why people have to subsidize someone living close to their job.