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
-
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.
-
-
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 threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What does that look like as a policy initiative (outside of higher prices incentivizing legacy owners to put property on the market)?
-
I don't really know. Good question. It's unclear even if it's the _fraction_ which is the relevant quantity. But it certainly seems unlikely to be the absolute number.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Another argument is -- even if we can't keep prices low, we can at least support economic growth. Much like widening highways can't decrease congestion, but it does actually enable more trips
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.