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
-
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.
-
-
I love on STOCKHOLM and due to a change of regulation, 4000 construction projects popped up at the same time. The market was really crazy at that time with sales price more than 30% over the asking price at a record 13000sek per sqm. When these constructions finally delivered...
-
The market liquidity totally stopped until prices went down. The reality of the market is now 20% lower than a year ago... but at the same time there is such a shortage of housing and so much attractiveness that everyone is sure that it will continue to go up and break new record
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Another problem especially in Berkeley is that the new housing being built is almost all luxury apartments.
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.