101–103 of 103 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you propose dealing with NIMBYs who refuse to be reassured?
One approach is lawsuits. http://missionlocal.org/2015/12/sf-group-renews-call-to-sue-...
Which I, personally, love. But perhaps isn't what parent meant by reassuring people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... which is sort of an interesting criticism, until you consider that you get a chance to "luck out" every 6-8 years or so when the real estate market crashes. There have been at least 3 such occasions since the Netscape IPO, and another on it's way. Hope you saved some money.
While there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the growth/zoning/etc. debate, I suspect that in the January 2016 economic climate in the Bay area, no reasonably imagined housing expansion would make more than the smallest dent in housing prices. Look at Manhattan. Yes, you can't build willy-nilly whatever you want but there's certainly plenty of high-rise residential construction and housing prices are still p…
I agree. I wasn't talking about expansion causing prices to drop - I was talking about an economic downturn and a contraction in credit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My opinion is that San Francisco's housing problems are at root a case of demand vastly exceeding supply. The solution is to produce more housing. This would happen naturally when demand exceeds supply, except that San Francisco has an excess of regulations that prevent construction of new homes and new apartments and a strong political coalition opposed to the construction of new housing. Adding more restrictions on…
I don't doubt that demand exceeds supply. San Francisco also is not really a representative sample of US (or global) home ownership vs rental and so on. All that aside, I don't really see the line of argument that links my proposed idea to "more restrictions". My initial thinking was something like (basically): current market forces (especially in SF) favor the consolidation of ownership in the hands of the few peopl…