3 ms·

Prices will come down when we build many millions of new homes. Sadly we are structurally unable to do it and unwilling to fix our regulatory environment to mak

Prices will come down when we build many millions of new homes. Sadly we are structurally unable to do it and unwilling to fix our regulatory environment to make it possible. Obviously that need is not uniformly distributed across the nation. California is probably around 4 million homes short all on its own.

komali2 4y ago
Sounds like prices would also come down if the government built or bought housing and then set the prices. Seems more certain to me than waiting for market forces to decide it's gonna be profitable to build 4,000,000 units.
- zbrozek 4y ago
  Why pick only one? We need to reduce barriers to construction, regardless of who is pursuing it.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  When builder's remedy rules kicked in this month for California cities that didn't meet state planning requirements, projects got filed for upwards of 10,000 housing units just in the first week alone. It would have been higher, except that some cities tried to game the process even more by foot-dragging and so there are ongoing lawsuits to declare them out of compliance. Current market forces would love to build truly astounding amounts of housing. The problem in the way is NIMBYism and shitty local zoning and permitting.
  - zbrozek 4y ago
    10k sounds high to me. I'm aware of about 400-500 submitted so far in the SFBA (of which I filed 20), and I personally know folks preparing a total of another 700 or so. Did you find a comprehensive tracker with higher numbers? There's a bunch in SoCal, but their non-compliance kicked in a little over a year ago.
    - carom 4y ago
      Santa Monica was about 5k units by itself. That is a 10% increase in the city's housing stock. There is so much pent up demand and the government and NIMBYs do everything to prevent new development. There was a four year period in Santa Monica where a grand total of 12 multi family units were permitted. [1] 1. Page 14 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/santamonica_localprofile.pdf?1606011172 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/santam...
      - zbrozek 4y ago
        Ok, but that's southern California which became vulnerable a while ago. The post I was replying to suggested there were ten thousand in the Bay Area based on the recency of vulnerability.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > Sounds like prices would also come down if the government built or bought housing and then set the prices. Yes, if the government built literally millions of houses, then prices would come down. That costs a bunch of money though. Instead of that, we can get private developers to build literally millions of homes, if we just made it legal to do so. We can get all of that for free. > than waiting for market forces There is no waiting here. Just make it legal for them to do so. Stop preventing them. Yes, if we make it illegal for private developers to build millions of homes, then they won't do that, because it's illegal.
- triceratops 4y ago
  Why would we spend government money on a problem that private money is capable of fixing?

komali2 4y ago

Sounds like prices would also come down if the government built or bought housing and then set the prices. Seems more certain to me than waiting for market forces to decide it's gonna be profitable to build 4,000,000 units.

zbrozek 4y ago
Why pick only one? We need to reduce barriers to construction, regardless of who is pursuing it.
crooked-v 4y ago
When builder's remedy rules kicked in this month for California cities that didn't meet state planning requirements, projects got filed for upwards of 10,000 housing units just in the first week alone. It would have been higher, except that some cities tried to game the process even more by foot-dragging and so there are ongoing lawsuits to declare them out of compliance. Current market forces would love to build truly astounding amounts of housing. The problem in the way is NIMBYism and shitty local zoning and permitting.
- zbrozek 4y ago
  10k sounds high to me. I'm aware of about 400-500 submitted so far in the SFBA (of which I filed 20), and I personally know folks preparing a total of another 700 or so. Did you find a comprehensive tracker with higher numbers? There's a bunch in SoCal, but their non-compliance kicked in a little over a year ago.
  - carom 4y ago
    Santa Monica was about 5k units by itself. That is a 10% increase in the city's housing stock. There is so much pent up demand and the government and NIMBYs do everything to prevent new development. There was a four year period in Santa Monica where a grand total of 12 multi family units were permitted. [1] 1. Page 14 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/santamonica_localprofile.pdf?1606011172 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/santam...
    - zbrozek 4y ago
      Ok, but that's southern California which became vulnerable a while ago. The post I was replying to suggested there were ten thousand in the Bay Area based on the recency of vulnerability.
stale2002 4y ago
> Sounds like prices would also come down if the government built or bought housing and then set the prices. Yes, if the government built literally millions of houses, then prices would come down. That costs a bunch of money though. Instead of that, we can get private developers to build literally millions of homes, if we just made it legal to do so. We can get all of that for free. > than waiting for market forces There is no waiting here. Just make it legal for them to do so. Stop preventing them. Yes, if we make it illegal for private developers to build millions of homes, then they won't do that, because it's illegal.
triceratops 4y ago
Why would we spend government money on a problem that private money is capable of fixing?