In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

Re:In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build by nickff on Saturday April 16, 2016 @01:06PM (#11511322)

This is a common intuitive argument, but the question that follows is why? Why must all housing be used? Could we not simply build more? Instead of looking at foreign purchases of homes as taking away an opportunity, it should be viewed as a stimulus program. The real problem seems to be that city planners are restricting new construction (to keep up home values, and allow them to 'shape' the city), and thus forcing foreign and domestic purchasers to compete instead of collaborate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build by 0xcde4c3db on Saturday April 16, 2016 @02:16PM (#11511645)

Vacant houses tend to be vandalized, infested by pests, and otherwise fall into disrepair (e.g. there's no one there to notice a plumbing leak). This is less of an issue for individual vacant units in multi-tenant buildings.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build by enraged_camel on Saturday April 16, 2016 @03:24PM (#11511895)

I'm not sure this is a problem for the types of housing purchased by foreign money. When foreigners invest in US housing, they tend to also hire property management firms that look after the property during vacancies.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build by Decade on Saturday April 16, 2016 @08:23PM (#11512934)

You can buy a house way faster than you can build a new one. According to Rousseauian liberalism, a proper government exists for the good of the people whom it represents, and foreign oligarchs do not represent the people in the cities where they are buying property. It’s bad for democracy.

I hear that Vancouver looks well-built, with lots of huge buildings, but come evening, and a whole lot of the windows in those high-rises remain stubbornly dark.

In other words, I can’t afford to couch-surf until all the foreign capital has been exhausted buying luxury condos. I need housing right now.

Besides restrictions on supply so that it doesn’t match demand, I think the problem here is the whole idea of your house as your major investment. It seemed nice to the earlier generations, who could buy a house with 1 year of earnings and sell it for 10 years of earnings, and they in turn could sell it for 40 years of earnings, but this pyramid scheme eventually has to collapse. When only the bank can own a house, then housing prices have to go down, and the poor people who put all their investment into home equity will be the ones who suffer from losing their money.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build by pj_mukh on Saturday April 16, 2016 @01:26PM (#11511427)

How would they "collaborate" if the supply was higher? I think the point of the activist was that the demand is far too high (almost double what would be caused by normal incoming techies).

My worry is that this investment is "flight-y" (they are not actually residents) if we double up supply and this investment leaves, SF becomes a Detroit that looks like Manhattan?

P.S: Obviously, increasing supply to meet actual renters'/new residents' demand is a no-brainer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build by hodwik2 on Saturday April 16, 2016 @01:26PM (#11511424)

The irony being that Vancouver real estate is only a great investment vehicle because they've had such strict building regulations, with the view corridors law.

Other cities are not such a sure investment, a spike in supply could destroy your capital overnight.

[ Parent | on HN ]