5 ms·
That would be so perverse if the government gave itself a monopoly on building housing. Just change zoning and make it legal for the private market to meet the
by carom 3y ago
That would be so perverse if the government gave itself a monopoly on building housing. Just change zoning and make it legal for the private market to meet the need. Look at all the builders remedy projects in Santa Monica to see that this works.
- bugglebeetle 3y agoBuilders Remedy affect on the affordability of Santa Monica is so minimal as to be irrelevant.
- Dylan16807 3y agoWhat definition of "monopoly" are you using here...?
- carom 3y agoIt being illegal, due to restrictive zoning, for private parties to build at higher densities.
- Dylan16807 3y agoOh, okay. I was confused because you said monopoly on housing, not dense housing. Yes they should force more zones to allow dense housing too.
- CapstanRoller 3y agoSorry, the "private market" had a chance to fix the problem but instead chose to squeeze tenants harder and harder for decades.
- carom 3y agoHousing is more or less maxed out with respect to zoning laws in a lot of places. Those come from the government. Rezone to allow higher density and people will build. It is functionally illegal to build more housing.
- CapstanRoller 3y agoYes, because of NIMBYism. Existing property owners benefit from an undersupply of housing, so they lobby for restrictions in order to reduce competition which would drive down prices and rents.