3 ms·

I do not understand this insistence that money spent on building more housing here is bad whereas spending the same amount of money on having 'those people' mov

I do not understand this insistence that money spent on building more housing here is bad whereas spending the same amount of money on having 'those people' move out of sight to somewhere else is somehow good. Where does this housing get built? Why would you build it on some of the most expensive land (SV) in the lower 48? I think the gap in your understanding is because you're just not listening to everyone telling you that the government's limited money will go further if it doesn't have to render/compensate landowners in the most expensive real estate market in the country. It's ludicrous to suggest that the government spend money buying land to build co-op housing in SV.

anigbrowl 12y ago
The problem in SV and much of SF is the unwillingess of property owners to tolerate too much upward building and their use of the private right of action granted by the California Environmental Quality Act to stymie development at the planning permission stage. Incumbent landowners try to maintain the value of their investment by limiting any increases in density. We might, for example, do better to abandon zoning and instead set up mechanisms to auction development rights, eg http://marketurbanism.com/2012/01/06/the-coase-theorem-in-land-use/ http://marketurbanism.com/2012/01/06/the-coase-theorem-in-la...