3 ms·

The government has been explicit about their intent here. They are holding off on building more even though hdb rents and hdb flat resale prices are skyrocketti

The government has been explicit about their intent here. They are holding off on building more even though hdb rents and hdb flat resale prices are skyrocketting because they don't want to lead to a drop in prices or may be even a cooling in the rate. As in...they want to keep current flat owners happy. The argument re hdb is probably still valid but it had more currency 10 or 20 years ago. Today, sg looks more and more like the rest of the developed world cities that refuse to build enough housing to meet demand. It's probably even more frustrating in that if there is any government that could do it if they wanted to, it would be the sg govt.

arcticbull 3y ago
> The government has been explicit about their intent here So it worked until they decided to stop doing it. And this is an argument against doing it? :)
- unmole 3y ago
  So it worked until it didn't. The government needs to constrain supply to keep the voter base happy at the expense of younger folks. A private builder wouldn't find itself in a similar situation.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    No, it worked until they stopped. That's not the same thing until 'working until it doesn't' - one is endogenous, one is exogenous. > The government needs to constrain supply to keep the voter base happy at the expense of younger folks. They literally do not. > A private builder wouldn't find itself in a similar situation. That's literally how it works right now in America, and Canada and the UK. The government constrains development in major metros to appease landowners. 83% of the Bay Area is zoned single-family, a zoning scheme developed with the explicit intent of keeping housing unaffordable for people of color in Berkeley in 1916 and copied throughout the US. That's exactly the situation private builders find themselves in. [1] [1] https://www.kqed.org/news/11840548/the-racist-history-of-single-family-home-zoning https://www.kqed.org/news/11840548/the-racist-history-of-sin...

arcticbull 3y ago

> The government has been explicit about their intent here So it worked until they decided to stop doing it. And this is an argument against doing it? :)

unmole 3y ago
So it worked until it didn't. The government needs to constrain supply to keep the voter base happy at the expense of younger folks. A private builder wouldn't find itself in a similar situation.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  No, it worked until they stopped. That's not the same thing until 'working until it doesn't' - one is endogenous, one is exogenous. > The government needs to constrain supply to keep the voter base happy at the expense of younger folks. They literally do not. > A private builder wouldn't find itself in a similar situation. That's literally how it works right now in America, and Canada and the UK. The government constrains development in major metros to appease landowners. 83% of the Bay Area is zoned single-family, a zoning scheme developed with the explicit intent of keeping housing unaffordable for people of color in Berkeley in 1916 and copied throughout the US. That's exactly the situation private builders find themselves in. [1] [1] https://www.kqed.org/news/11840548/the-racist-history-of-single-family-home-zoning https://www.kqed.org/news/11840548/the-racist-history-of-sin...