It’s not just about building more housing. It’s also that California’s entire property and land use system incentivizes owners to hold, so fewer and fewer homes trade every single year.https://twitter.com/thebasispoint/status/1003325808528773120 …
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
If staying put is bad, and incentives to depress turnover are also, then that same argument undercuts rent control, no?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mikegatto
It’s really hard to encapsulate the whole argument in Twitter. But do you think there’s not a feasible policy solution or middle road where we can encourage housing stability without land-banking or land-hoarding? Or are those inextricably linked?
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
I agree - hard to encapsulate on twitter. Generally I think people don’t buy enough when prices are low. Buffett: “my only aim is to be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.” Housing was affordable (quite) from 2012-2014, for example (1/2)
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mikegatto @kimmaicutler
And also, high prices can be a motivator to balance the inequities in our state. We should work on developing jobs in depressed areas where abundant land means cheap prices. https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gatto-ten-points-housing-20170920-story.html%3foutputType=amp … (#7 therein). The market is telling us certain areas are too crowded. (2/2)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mikegatto
I hear that POV, but urbanization is a multi-century trend that was only briefly interrupted by postwar suburbanization. Also coastal California is not that high density relative to other global urban cores that are a century or centuries older.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @mikegatto
It’s not that Google won’t open an office in the rural Midwest per se. it’s more that workers there can’t count on Google being their employer for 30+ years with a pension so it doesn’t make sense for them to move to a location with a thin employment market should their job fail.
2 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
I am pretty sure folks aren’t thinking that way. Now that I think about it, I’ve never heard anyone express things that way. People think in the immediate: do I have a job, are there features (culture) I want, are schools good, etc.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
In the industry in the Bay Area, people change jobs every 2-5 years so the question isn’t just about the job today, it’s about whether there will be a lot of employment opportunities there in 2 years or more.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
But tech isn’t everything and I wasn’t just discussing tech. Any good employment base would be good for the inexpensive cities.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mikegatto
Right. I’m just talking about why a tech employer would or would not expand somewhere. They certainly are expanding outside the Bay Area now though, but mostly to existing, long established metros in the rest of the country, not rural California.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes - 12 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.