Re:AirBnB units drop by 74% due to SF regulations
by MRSallee on Sunday January 14, 2018 @11:49PM
(#16148554)
I'm not sure why you presented this as contradictory to the post you replied to.
> High prices (demand) attracting speculation (supply) should drive down rents (prices) ... [but they're not]
Should? Then why aren't they?
> new buildings are regulated through zoning and permits.
Re:AirBnB units drop by 74% due to SF regulations
by tw04 on Monday January 15, 2018 @12:03AM
(#16148607)
Because it is contradictory. Sure, in a vacuum where there's infinite land available and no rules, supply would meet demand. In a vacuum Antarctica would be a great vacation destination with amazing views of the ocean.
In reality Antarctica is freezing cold and difficult to get to. And in reality there is a shortage of places to build new housing at an affordable price in either location mentioned.
Re:AirBnB units drop by 74% due to SF regulations
by MRSallee on Monday January 15, 2018 @08:32PM
(#16155091)
If you think that is contradictory to the original poster, you might think they said something I'm pretty sure they didn't.
While life might be simpler with your model, it doesn’t fit reality well.
Here’s a decent analysis of the California situation with mismatched supply and demand and the headache that goes along with the state’s governance: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-home-prices-20170725-s...