So you keep saying. Care to put some numbers to that? Try ballparking the per-unit cost of land, improvements, and construction for what is essentially single-family development in and around the bay area. Then let us know who's going to pay for it.
> But that doesn't change the fundamental problem at play here. The price of current homes is too high
Literally not a single person here would disagree with that. You're not saying anything new or revelatory. You think you have some kind of nuanced perspective, but you're just repeating what everyone else has said here for years; runaway housing inflation, nimbyism, etc. Yes, true, very good.
I don't think anyone who believes the solution to homelessness involves building "cheap as hell" trailer parks in the most expensive areas of the country can have thought about this too deeply.
$90,000 for the lot. Place maybe 2 or 3 trailer-homes onto the property + a driveway to access the trailer-homes. Maybe $300k for 3 family units.
The issue isn't the price of land or the price of trailer-homes ($20,000 per trailer home). Its the NIMBYism, the neighbors who will run you out of the neighborhood for bringing down the value of their homes.
Now we have a multifaceted problem for sure. The people who own homes don't want their homes losing value. We need to build new homes without destroying the value of the older homes.
_THAT_ is the problem. A neighborhood that currently is filled with $700k to $2mm homes attracts a certain clientele. Filling it up with a trailer park is going to be rejected by the local boards / NIMBYism.
For good measure. I personally wouldn't want my $1mm investment to go down the drain to fix the housing issue.
--------------
But that doesn't change the fundamental problem at play here. The price of current homes is too high, and that's largely because the bay area doesn't have enough homes. Either now, nor being built.
> To think Oakland, a far less wealthy city, could merely build its way out of the current problem using public funds and without displacing anybody is even less realistic, to say the least.
A trailer park is cheap as hell. The issue isn't about building it. Its about the NIMBYism revolving around home prices, and how that kind of addition would lower the value of properties.
I'm not demonizing NIMBYism. I understand it. But you gotta understand that political issue as well to see how it affects the greater region.