Apparently not all economists agree that increasing housing supply would make rents cheaper.
Source?
[deleted]
Housing in the Bay Area
21–30 of 407 posts
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#22Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#23[deleted]
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#24I highly doubt this bill would pass without severe modifications. The problem is that we have two groups in population: One who own houses and other who don't. First group don't want new houses and dilute value of their property. Politicans very well knows that making this group unhappy will end their careers. The second group is often in minority outside large cities. This is why its very hard to pass laws that woul…
Would it really affect homeowners outside major cities that much? Nobody is going to rush out to the middle of nowhere to build apartment buildings.
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#25Even if this bill passes and substantially more multi-family housing starts getting built, do not be surprised if house prices remain extremely high.
Vancouver doesn't have the same anti-development issues that SF has, and has been building multi-unit condos and apartments all over the region for decades. Multi-unit housing starts are about at its highest level ever. The average price of a detached house however is C$1.3 million (~US$998k thanks to the weak Canadian dollar) and rising. Low interest rates, "fear of missing out," incredible amounts of real estate speculation and a dash of foreign investment can go a long way.
It's likely that the strongest benefits to increased supply in SF will manifest itself in lower rents and/or lower rate of rent increases.
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#26Won't work. Imagine supply is met, housing is cheap. People then want to live there more. Eventually the point of equilibrium is restored which is that banks keep on creating fiat money until land prices reach a point where you can just about eat and afford the interest repayments. Land value tax is the answer for all those who don't simply want a quick in so they can get on the gravy train and actually want their ki…
Yeah, it's always going to be a function of income in the area. People value housing enough to pay up to 50% of their income towards it in desirable cities. If more inventory is available more people will elect to live in SF and rents will find equilibrium at around the 50% of incomes
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#27I made an app that uses your GPS location to show you who your elected representatives are, lets you call, tweet, email them.
TryVoices.com (iOS + Android)
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#28Apparently not all economists agree that increasing housing supply would make rents cheaper.
Source?
I can't say for sure if this is what Foobarqux was referring to but this article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11708873 came up a couple weeks ago which states
> Tim Redmond of 48 Hills has argued that building more housing would make the problem [high housing costs] worse because the people who would move into it are likely to be wealthy newcomers whose demand for services will increase low-income employment, putting further pressure on older, lower-cost housing.
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#29I highly doubt this bill would pass without severe modifications. The problem is that we have two groups in population: One who own houses and other who don't. First group don't want new houses and dilute value of their property. Politicans very well knows that making this group unhappy will end their careers. The second group is often in minority outside large cities. This is why its very hard to pass laws that woul…
I own a house in Silicon Valley. And I'm all for building more.
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#30This guy has never worked a day in his life.