3 ms·

You raise reasonable points. It seems like a common trend is that housing prices go up anyway due to outside investors buying up property, high income workers m

You raise reasonable points. It seems like a common trend is that housing prices go up anyway due to outside investors buying up property, high income workers moving in and wanting luxury apartments, etc. Seems like we need to solve the demand part of the puzzle as well. There’s definitely no single easy solution here. It could also be that too few cities have increased housing supply, so the local effect is totally overwhelmed by a national or global effect. Either way, the bill is going forward, so we will be able to see the effects and reevaluate its effectiveness. I don’t think the idea of “just let the population go down” is a reasonable approach. Especially since it will be poorer people pushed out, even lifelong residents who are displaced by highly paid newcomers. It’s better to try something new and find out you were wrong than to never even try to solve the problem.

cyberax 1y ago
> You raise reasonable points. It seems like a common trend is that housing prices go up anyway due to outside investors buying up property, high income workers moving in and wanting luxury apartments, etc. Yes. And there will always be something else explaining the rising costs. You ban foreign investors (see: Vancouver)? You get local investment companies buying the properties instead. You start doing rent control? You get tons of dilapidated housing with generational poverty, among other skyrocketing market-based housing. > Seems like we need to solve the demand part of the puzzle as well. There’s definitely no single easy solution here. There actually is. Stop trying to make density happen. Instead, promote suburbs and smaller cities. It's as simple as that. > I don’t think the idea of “just let the population go down” is a reasonable approach. You don't get other options. > Especially since it will be poorer people pushed out, even lifelong residents who are displaced by highly paid newcomers. "Poor people" are the ones suffering from urbanization the most.
- brokencode 1y ago
  Nah, I’m not convinced. All I’m convinced of is that you don’t like density, not that it isn’t part of the solution. You don’t get to tell everybody else what the options are.
  - cyberax 1y ago
    Can you provide counter-examples for my points? Just one would suffice. And no, Austin is not an example. It stopped the bubble by reducing the population. As did Denver, btw. And yeah, I absolutely hate density. It's murdering Western civilization and the very fabric of democracy.
    - brokencode 1y ago
      The situation is way more complicated for every city you’ve mentioned than you let on. I’m not going to keep on arguing with you on this because what would be the point? I attempted to have a reasonable conversation and you repeatedly showed that you will not consider any nuance.
      - cyberax 1y ago
        > The situation is way more complicated for every city you’ve mentioned than you let on. And? The situation is _always_ more complicated. Yet somehow, all these complications always lead to one outcome. We'll soon see how California becomes even more polarized politically, with the agricultural parts probably engaging in real terrorism out of powerlessness and poverty. While the coastal cities will have even higher and higher housing costs.

cyberax 1y ago

> You raise reasonable points. It seems like a common trend is that housing prices go up anyway due to outside investors buying up property, high income workers moving in and wanting luxury apartments, etc. Yes. And there will always be something else explaining the rising costs. You ban foreign investors (see: Vancouver)? You get local investment companies buying the properties instead. You start doing rent control? You get tons of dilapidated housing with generational poverty, among other skyrocketing market-based housing. > Seems like we need to solve the demand part of the puzzle as well. There’s definitely no single easy solution here. There actually is. Stop trying to make density happen. Instead, promote suburbs and smaller cities. It's as simple as that. > I don’t think the idea of “just let the population go down” is a reasonable approach. You don't get other options. > Especially since it will be poorer people pushed out, even lifelong residents who are displaced by highly paid newcomers. "Poor people" are the ones suffering from urbanization the most.

brokencode 1y ago
Nah, I’m not convinced. All I’m convinced of is that you don’t like density, not that it isn’t part of the solution. You don’t get to tell everybody else what the options are.
- cyberax 1y ago
  Can you provide counter-examples for my points? Just one would suffice. And no, Austin is not an example. It stopped the bubble by reducing the population. As did Denver, btw. And yeah, I absolutely hate density. It's murdering Western civilization and the very fabric of democracy.
  - brokencode 1y ago
    The situation is way more complicated for every city you’ve mentioned than you let on. I’m not going to keep on arguing with you on this because what would be the point? I attempted to have a reasonable conversation and you repeatedly showed that you will not consider any nuance.
    - cyberax 1y ago
      > The situation is way more complicated for every city you’ve mentioned than you let on. And? The situation is _always_ more complicated. Yet somehow, all these complications always lead to one outcome. We'll soon see how California becomes even more polarized politically, with the agricultural parts probably engaging in real terrorism out of powerlessness and poverty. While the coastal cities will have even higher and higher housing costs.