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
Yes, and: If you want to analyze this as a trend, it's super-weird to start the clock just after a real estate bubble popped, in the midst of a historic foreclosure crisis. That there were this many properties changing hands in 2008 was not a good thing for many people involved.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @bedwardstiek
Yes that’s why I asked Selma for a different year comparison in 2006 or so. But when I look at other datasets in SF and then some LAO data on turnover, that trend is consistent there too.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @bedwardstiek
Example, statewide data since the 1970s: http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3497 …pic.twitter.com/GnKrPP1muQ
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Weird that the trend looks to be up from the early 90s to the early aughts. Is this residential only, or all properties?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Not sure. You can look more closely. You can also ask them. But often, when people are like, why is that shitty shack selling for $2M? Usually, the answer is that only 30 homes total are listed within a couple miles of a $900 billion company.
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.