I think the real answer is to overbuild market rate housing and cause a crash in rents. The other benefit to massive new construction is that more people in aggregate keep their older apartments since the new stuff soaks up demand. Not enough BMR units :(
Conversation
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
Better than letting TODCO prevent the development of anything they happen to notice. The more housing we build the better.
1
developer financing doesn’t work like that. housing dev is a long term investment & investors are easily spooked. pro formas are at least 30 year projections. it’s not VC world where you make bets & the upside of one investment outweighs downsides of the rest of your portfolio
1
3
there are tens of thousands of units in SF, mostly market rate, that have been entitled but not built. the Board of Supervisors didn’t do that. economics did
1
2
the only comparable supply glut situation I can think of in CA history happened in San Diego. and do you know what they did? business interests and government demolished public housing to force tenants into for profit housing in order to stave off the crash. and rents went up
2
4
if the scenario you want were remotely plausible private developers wouldn’t develop in the first place dude. market production is cyclical and cools off the moment there’s even a modest decrease in aggregate rent
1
2
Back to Seattle which worked pretty much as I’ve described. Another thing is to lower the costs of housing by stopping organized labor from using prefab housing
1
