@MBridegam @natogreen that's not the argument. It's not demonizing homeowners for not selling to developers. It's to point out that most
-
-
federal housing funding is actually regressively tilted toward upper middle class homeowners.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
the same policies that enable developers to make financial returns from land are the ones that help landowners at a
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
significantly greater scale. There's no way, at 2K units/yr to force developers to build a sufficient amt of
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
affordable housing, when the other 380K are effectively made into a scarce global asset w/ protected returns.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @natogreen
Do you have a problem with seeing condos built that are left empty as investments?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MBridegam @natogreen
outside investors are buying old single family homes in the South Bay as investments. Condos don't store value as well
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
condos are *losing* value, while single-family homes are appreciating. If you were to keep something vacant as
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
investment, you'd buy a Mountain View tract home, not a Mission Bay condo. Way better returns.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @natogreen
But if you were an absentee investor wanting a box to contain value but not activity, you'd buy a condo.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MBridegam @natogreen
but you probably wouldn't earn as much return if you did a condo, instead of a single family home
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 5 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.