Re:LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month
by BurningFrog on Thursday May 27, 2021 @05:50PM
(#27309015)
I was arguing against the idea that adding "luxury" housing won't lower prices.
Most people understands it does it if you add a million units, but for some reason they can't grasp that each new unit contributes.
I was not predicting anyone would build a million units overnight, certainly not accidentally.
> At some point for profit developers will not build because they can't make a return.
SF has been very near this point for decades. Because new construction is mostly illegal, and if not extremely expensive and slow. Because of explicit policy from the SF BoS.
If housing construction were legalized in SF, say by adopting the regulations of Houston or Tokyo, there would be an enormous construction wave in the city. No one can predict to what level, but after that has transformed the city we can take stock and see if any other measures need to taken.
But I don't see SF doing anything of the kind without at least a decade of hesitation. The city is far too conservative to change.
Most people understands it does it if you add a million units, but for some reason they can't grasp that each new unit contributes.
I was not predicting anyone would build a million units overnight, certainly not accidentally.
> At some point for profit developers will not build because they can't make a return.
SF has been very near this point for decades. Because new construction is mostly illegal, and if not extremely expensive and slow. Because of explicit policy from the SF BoS.
If housing construction were legalized in SF, say by adopting the regulations of Houston or Tokyo, there would be an enormous construction wave in the city. No one can predict to what level, but after that has transformed the city we can take stock and see if any other measures need to taken.
But I don't see SF doing anything of the kind without at least a decade of hesitation. The city is far too conservative to change.