This is good for the environment (shorter commutes)
, good for families (affordable homes)
, good for economic mobility (
https://www.nber.org/papers/w24661 ), and good for the country (
https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/chang-tai.hsieh/research/growth.pdf …).
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“When headlines don’t match their accompanying photo” -by John D. Oh
-
The man pictured is the developer of the project in question
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Just another reminder, you don't own real estate, you only rent it from the government...
-
In CA you rent it for way under its rate of appreciation by law
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That 18% increase figure cannot be correct. That would indicate there are only 15,000 homes in San Francisco today, a city with a population of 880,000 people. I mean, I know the city is packed, but not 53-people-per-household kind of packed.
-
south sf and sf are two different municipalities.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I won’t hold my breath that this will drive rent/housing costs down...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The bubble will pop by the time they're built and they won't be necessary. Central planning always works out in the end.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Oakland is adding 6800 units to its housing stock this year ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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.