Problem is 75-80% of California's net population growth is just Californians having more Californian children. http://www.ppic.org/main/keystat.asp?i=1261#4 …https://twitter.com/mbridegam/status/862909655562862593 …
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
It's not all about population numbers. Grossly unequal incomes cause markets to charge what the top end of the market will bear.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MBridegam @kimmaicutler
i think that's true, and is why i and many others think the market distortion from scarcity must be addressed (fixes typo)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sr_Lazarus @kimmaicutler
Sure. But has to include building for modest tastes and budgets, and reducing incentives to hold existing space empty/underused/in family.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MBridegam @Sr_Lazarus
The things that were originally built for modest tastes and budgets in the Bay Area are now luxuries. https://www.google.com/amp/sf.curbed.com/platform/amp/2017/4/26/15439048/silicon-valley-teardown-sold-home-house …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It's enhanced by the regressive property tax code.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @Sr_Lazarus
Yes, property tax reform makes far more sense than treating luxury towers as Progress.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
What do you think is 10X more politically feasible?
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @Sr_Lazarus
Depending how the increments of change are chosen, probably tax reform.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.