Live data from Hacker News

San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

kpbs.org

181–190 of 253 posts

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taken to extremes you'll have all wealthy people living in California, and the rest of the country available to us plebs. Which is exactly what people are afraid of happening, and what they mean by the crisis of housing affordability. You can go and buy or rent a cheap house today in probably 90% of the localities of the USA. Of course, if you already live in those places, you probably don't have the money, because…

"The problem of housing is that regular people want to live in NYC, and Chicago, and LA, and all of these places, and relatively near to where their jobs are" It's not clear in your phrasing, but it sounds like this is a casual correlation. It's not... Many people only want to live in these cities because it's the ONLY way to get work, given a choice they would quickly move out.

It is a cycle that always leads to increased population density, and has done so since the dawn of agriculture. People tend to go where there are more people, and then work and entertainment happens where most people are, which attracts more people, and so on. This was as true in Ur as it is in NYC.

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco is notoriously the most anti-new-housing city in the country.

Frisco (come at me) rent and housing prices have way more to do with the valuation of the latest startup darling than with much else.

SF (only acceptable abbreviation) is 7x7 miles square surrounded by water on three sides—the only way to grow is up, right after you knock down the 100 yro Victorian homes and historic buildings, and gut the neighborhood charms. This from someone who once paid rent 1300/mo for a two bedroom in Potrero Hill.

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#183

Incredible. So what you're saying is... we should just build more housing? Who would have thought that was the answer?

I see the "supply and demand" straw man is propped up well and often in this thread. Let's talk about the actual dynamics in play:

1) Rent-Fixing: This is widespread across the country and the actual reason why inventory increases often (commonly) do not lower prices. There are multiple tactics landlords have used to ratchet up rates without ever letting them drop. These include lease concessions that don't affect the base rent in lieu of rate drops in step with lowered demand, warehousing that artificially limits accessible supply even when new, physical units are hitting the market, and algorithmic price-fixing had allowed landlords within a region to stay in lock step without breaking rank lower. When landlords are able to use such tactics with impunity, they absolutely do warp supply-demand dynamics and allow rent rates to stay high even in the face of expanding actual inventory. For rents to decline, you have to break large landlords' ability to set their price.

2) Builder Subsidies: "Just build more and prices will drop," ignores that the incentive structures municipalities use to draw developers are an additional burden on residents. These for-profit corporations then seek to make a profit on their investment, leading to no direct meaningful inventory increase in the affordable unit range. Worse, developers often target existing affordable units for their redevelopment, destroying the very units that the new inventory is supposed to ultimately reduce demand for. In order for "build more" to drive down rents, it can't be done the way it has been, which mostly ends up being a giveaway to developers at the expense of the tax base and displaced renters.

San Diego is a special case where it seems that the expanding inventory has been driven not by corporate developers, but by the construction of ADUs, which are built by homeowners out-of-pocket, are not tax-subsidized and, in fact, increase the taxable value of property. In this way, they work almost counter to traditional development, and these factors combine with their being created and operated outside of the control of corporate landlords means that they represent new and meaningful competition to those landlords. Thus, efficiencies are sought and prices drop.

Encourage ADUs. Avoid subsidizing large developers and corporate landlords. If there is the political will, get the government directly involved in constructing subsidized owner-occupied, human-scale housing, as in Singapore and the pre-Thatcher UK. Relax zoning and build out public transit and car-free infrastructure in order to reduce the accessibility premium, as in Japan. That is how "build more" actually can work to lower rates.

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#184

Incredible. So what you're saying is... we should just build more housing? Who would have thought that was the answer?

Well, that will work in a 1M people city, but in larger ones you also have to fix transit. Another impossible problem, that nobody has ever been able to discover the solution is to build mass transit. Maybe one day people will manage to solve it.

Can't tell if serious... like The Onion article suggesting that "there's no solution to reducing gun violence, says nation with unique access to guns".

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There a lot of desirable areas in a country and a fixed amount of people. The equilibrium between demand and supply has the supply curve impacted by a whole host of policy choices. Eg housing is impacted by cost of permitting, regulations, cost of materials and labor etc. All of these things can be improved by policy. There's a strong argument that especially infrastructure but housing should be built with people on…

Water is the primary limiter on city population sizes in the west. I wouldn’t be surprised if San Diego wasn’t at its limit already with respect to water resources, but I haven’t looked into it. Desalination could improve that. If we could have Chinese work crews come in and build housing, especially 30 story concrete towers that are popular in Asia, we could build fairly cheaply, that isn’t really the limitation (it…

San Diego in fact has a surfeit that it's looking at selling off

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/17/climate/san-diego-water-s...

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who grew up in San Diego and now lives in Dubai, I point towards how much of the construction companies in Dubai are partly government owned and were at once fully owned before the government sold shares in their IPOs. I really don’t understand why the California government doesn’t just build luxury condos at a large scale for profit. The state will get revenue and lower housing costs overall.

Private companies are good at removing inefficiencies. As long as there is competition, private companies will offer better service at lower price. State-owned companies work better in cases where maintaining healthy competition is not possible, or where inefficiencies are not a concern. In particular, Gulf states have virtually unlimited money, which means that it doesn't matter whether a new construction costs $400…

Except Medicare disproves this as a universal case. Government can run efficiently.

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#187
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been told repeatedly by people who have a vested interest in maintaining high housing prices that supply and demand don't work at all, ever, for any reason, and high prices are no reason to build more housing. How do I reconcile these facts?!?

Easily. Many of those people have a correct observation in that new construction is just luxury housing, which is obviously unaffordable for people struggling with rent. What they fail to miss is that for every luxury unit that's built and is occupied, some well-off person moved into it... And out of a shitty, cheap unit that's now on the market.

This is the common refrain, however, consider:

There were two shitty, cheap units. The people in the first were forced to move out when a developer bought it, tore it down, and built the luxury unit. They have been homeless/going into debt renting a third slightly-less-shitty third unit. Without the first shitty, cheap unit, the second's competition was that third slightly-less-shitty unit; they raised their prices commensurately.

The well-off person moved into their nice new unit. The poor person's choice is staying in the unit they can't afford, or spending thousands on moving costs to go to a shittier unit that they also can't afford. Oh, and the city "motivated" the luxury unit's development with tax incentives. A larger percentage of the poor person's check is now going toward paying that back.

This is the reality once you get past simple narratives and reconcile with the fact that building tons of luxury units hasn't actually moved the needle.

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frisco (come at me) rent and housing prices have way more to do with the valuation of the latest startup darling than with much else.

SF (only acceptable abbreviation) is 7x7 miles square surrounded by water on three sides—the only way to grow is up, right after you knock down the 100 yro Victorian homes and historic buildings, and gut the neighborhood charms. This from someone who once paid rent 1300/mo for a two bedroom in Potrero Hill.

Nah, Frisco has a long history of use

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/rappers-poets-activists...

as does 'the City'.

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private companies are good at removing inefficiencies. As long as there is competition, private companies will offer better service at lower price. State-owned companies work better in cases where maintaining healthy competition is not possible, or where inefficiencies are not a concern. In particular, Gulf states have virtually unlimited money, which means that it doesn't matter whether a new construction costs $400…

It's 'easy' if you have inside connections with the planning and zoning committees and utility companies. I recently developed a property worth about $250k for about $100k. The building process itself is relatively cheap (land + cost construction way cheaper than value of a finished property) and straightforward, everything else is not. The only reason why I was able to get it done as a random person was because I us…

I am begging you to write a detailed overview of how all of this played out.

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That says more about affordability than desirability since rents have gone up over the decade but there's been a steady trickle out to cheaper locales

You are reversing cause/effect though. SF rents have gone up, that didn't decrease demand. Why did SD rents drop, not because people left because it was too expensive, that doesn't make sense.

That's not what I'm saying. While they dropped recently due to the supply surge, looking at the last decade SD rents had been climbing:

https://www.costar.com/article/1297403833/san-diego-apartmen...

This suggests that San Diego has been getting more desirable over time (denser, more jobs, more culture, etc). The people who'd been around for some time that could hack the old SD rents couldn't deal with those rising costs and had been spilling over to Temecula, Phoenix, etc.

Post reply on HN