San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartments in 73.5% of the city

Re:San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartmen... by dahdum on Thursday July 19, 2018 @02:32PM (#17569108)

Sounds fantastic for the wealthy, who in a recession still have access to easy capital. Better yet REITs, who can swoop in to take entire blocks of SF homes and then rent them back to the same people who don't want to leave.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartmen... by briandear on Thursday July 19, 2018 @04:15PM (#17569845)

Then why didn’t those people set the value higher? If you sell for some price, then you agree that you do want to leave for that price. The “market” would be efficient — people would sell for exactly what they would be willing to sell for. “Sentimental” value could be expressed in actual, taxable value. You could quantify exactly what a house is worth to you — and can insure the home appropriately.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartmen... by wadkar on Friday July 20, 2018 @02:53AM (#17573002)

> “Sentimental” value could be actual, taxable value. You could quantify exactly what a house is worth to you

That sounds horrible and very much impossible by definition. The “exact” value of my house where I spent my entire adulthood/childhood is “not for sale”

I keep hearing abouy this market efficiency but never came across a quantifiable measurement of this efficiency. Could you please point me to some literature where they say “oh this market is 70% efficient and that market is 90% because …”? How do you put “exact value” to this efficiency stuff?

[ Parent | on HN ]