Many people in the Bay Area argue that NIMBYs ignore the basic economics of supply and demand. Build more housing, they argue, and prices will inevitably drop.
Show this thread
-
In Braess's paradox, increasing the capacity of a road to carry traffic may actually lead to more congestion, since more people will want to use it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox …
Show this thread
What bothers me is that generally speaking the biggest cities (a) have the largest supply of housing; and (b) have the highest prices, because being big makes them so attractive. So a large supply is actually anti-correlated with low prices.
-
-
So while I believe the supply-and-demand argument over, say, a 1-year timescale, I wonder if it's false over 20 years. Make housing a lot easier to build, SF will become a much bigger city, and prices may go up even more.
Show this thread -
A counter-argument would be to say something like: what's needed is to ensure a permanent structural increase in the _fraction_ of the city's housing stock that is available.
Show this thread -
That argument seems pretty good to me (though, as with the first argument, I'm also not sure of it). But it's not the argument I often hear from the NIMBYs-are-ignorant-of-economics people.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
25 years ago few people wanted to live in downtown Brooklyn; now it’s full of $2800/month studios and $850K one-bedroom condos.
Thanks. 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.