5 ms·
Subsidizing is NOT the answer. This will drive up prices for everyone living above subsidies. The problem is demand WAY outstrips housing supply. In my opinion
by cmbaus 13y ago
Subsidizing is NOT the answer. This will drive up prices for everyone living above subsidies. The problem is demand WAY outstrips housing supply. In my opinion the one thing that could kill the Bay Area economy is the aversion to residential construction.
Housing stock on the Geary corridor could be easily increased, and even a modest improvement to the transit system in that area could make a big difference.
It is absolutely crazy to artificially restrict residential building in areas where there is high employment demand. It is almost like we want to prevent economic growth.
The US is a crazy place. We complain that there isn't enough economic growth, but when it happens, we put in all kinds of restrictions that limit it.
- gdubs 13y agoThis is kind of like arguing that the way to fix LA's traffic problem is to build more freeways. For a time congestion will ease, and then before you know it there will just be more cars, and the traffic will return. More concrete, more cars, same problem.
- cmbaus 13y agoNo it isn't. Building high density housing is nothing like building more freeways. Edit: Many people argue in favor of building restrictions on the basis of environmental concerns, but limiting housing in SF is just pushing more people out to places like Sacramento, which are suburban waste lands and models of inefficiency.
- gdubs 13y agoI'm not arguing that urban density is less efficient, but that the increased capacity would simply be filled with more high-paid workers. The city would have to throw up a ton of housing projects to have an effect on the median housing costs. IMHO it would be better to spend that money transforming the transportation and public education systems...