by joshlittle on 8/2/16, 9:33 PM with 68 comments
by VanillaCafe on 8/3/16, 12:13 AM
That's just not true.
An trending increase in the national average monthly cost of rent shows that people are competing more for housing. But, that can be explained by a migration to major metropolitan centers and/or tech centers. Which is a totally different mechanism than "running out of housing".
by ergothus on 8/3/16, 12:08 AM
I must be missing something - housing prices are combination of "affordable minimum" due to costs, and "what the market will bare". In a market with scarce housing and huge housing prices, it should be very doable to offer below-market-rate housing and still be profitable, all without subsidies. Right?
That said, I'm all in favor of increasing density. I forget where I read it, but I saw a great analysis about how it's "cheap" to get city councils to pass limitations on future growth (Nimby), but getting them to pass actions (new housing, etc) often requires they show how it is paid for. As those limitations have an opportunity cost, they too should be justified.
Still though, I don't understand the above part of the article. Help?
by notadoc on 8/3/16, 12:27 AM
by rbanffy on 8/3/16, 12:14 AM
by vinceguidry on 8/3/16, 1:14 AM
Just when you thought you heard it all, journalists find another way to sound supremely stupid. The US ranks 182 out of 244 on the list of countries by population density.
If you took the entire world's population and crammed it into the continental US, we'd be midway between Bangladesh and Taiwan.
by HillaryBriss on 8/3/16, 12:05 AM
Is it safe to say that, in US cities, quality of life generally gets worse with increases in population density?
If so, is it because US local and state governments are pretty bad at managing population increase, in general?
by kafkaesq on 8/3/16, 1:13 AM
Basically they're taking a situation that is notoriously complex and entrenched, with multiple interlocking tradeoffs and feedback loops; cherry picking a few of the driving factors, and throwing in a few offhand observations about the positions that "progressives" (as if this were an identifiable, let alone unified group) supposedly take in regard to these issues; and concluding with the innuendo that this "Them", this "Other", is "declaring war" on not just affordable housing, but on economic growth and progress itself.
And also:
Unlike progressives in New York City, who are often big supporters of density, San Francisco progressives have decided to focus on kicking the tech industry out of the city.
No, not bending over for every regulatory or other concession certain elements of an industry might want does not equal a drive to "kick them out." This is a scare card, pure and simple; it's meant to befuddle and distract, and sheds no light on the complex issues at root.
by beatpanda on 8/3/16, 12:27 AM
It is true that San Francisco's "left" is against housing construction. It is also true that San Francisco politics are an inverted world where "left" and "right" cease to even have meaning. So we need competent writers to try to sort this out. But writing articles like this that just plow through the nuance and make elementary mistakes, like apparently not even reading the language of or rational for Oakland's eviction moratorium, make it harder to get to a bargain on this stuff.
by chris_va on 8/3/16, 12:28 AM
"Rent control is in effect, but that has just increased the incentive for evictions"
... ignore so many issues that it makes it hard to believe the core argument.
by paulddraper on 8/3/16, 11:13 AM
Maybe I'll start calling everyone progressive. They all have opinions about something.
by gozur88 on 8/3/16, 12:34 AM