5 ms·
> 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? :)
by 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 agoSo 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 agoNo, 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...