Sure? Large institutional investors own like 2% of single family homes, so irrelevant overall but have driven prices in certain markets, so I guess why not?
I’m in complete agreement, just stating my view on the political angle of it. Which, to wit, is an illustration of the inherent tension created by the normie veer to left YIMBY, among other things.
She used to shitpost a lot like that before it cost her a spot in the de Blasio admin, IIRC. But she does seem like a pretty smart person from interviews, unlike most tenant organizers, who are fueled by conspiracy theories. I’m not defending her or getting into the merits - this board does not like that - just pointing out Mamdani has always been aware of this and doesn’t give a shit. Also, his actual housing policy director is a YIMBY from the Adams administration.
The funny part is she is an ardent YIMBY who drives a certain segment of leftists insane. Also she is an extremely well known quantity in the housing policy world so this is a surprise to no one besides pearl clutching rightoids.
Want a mind fuck? The Bower opened in March 2020. Walked past a soft opening and thought it was a sceney Magazine spot that would last a year or two. Guessing it was solid going into almost six years? Good lord, time flies. Have Gabrielle, Kingsway and Clancy’s lined up for our trip next week but things are fluid. Wish I had tried out EJ’s Emeril’s before the two stars dropped.
Good post, weird thread. There seems to be a reactive push to describe the fraud as immaterial. The actual situation is that it is one of the largest social services fraud scandals in the state’s history, has had significant political fallout over the past few years and is being seized by MAGA as a key issue in the gubernatorial race - which is why the bogus $9 billion figure just dropped. Not sure why that’s controversial.
Oh, I think we are in complete agreement. Prices will not decrease in the long term. They obviously shouldn’t. But they should not rise - and given the OP’s article, I’m referring to California - as astronomically as they had been over the past 15 years. I live in San Francisco. It’s basically an existential issue. No one deserves to live here, but I don’t like having my daughter’s elementary school close and paying firefighters $200k to drive in two hours from Gilroy.
It’s definitely an unspoken problem in the housing debate. YIMBYs took control of the narrative in CA, NY, etc with “Housing supply goes up, rent goes down!”, and while supply shock has had successful short term cases (Austin, Minneapolis) but the reality is the best case scenario is to open up supply to put downward pressure on pricing while trying to address the demand side through increased progressive taxation. But that’s not nearly as catchy as “Freeze the rent!”.
It’s difficult, but, like climate change, still in my view worth fighting for. And the private market is best positioned to provide supply. With 100% affordable projects costing well over $1M per unit in VHCOL cities, no state government can feasibly spend its way entirely out of this.
While I share your pessimism for the Sisyphean task of addressing California’s housing crisis, I note, for the sake of arguing on an internet message board on a slow Friday, that the entire point of the article is about the state’s decision in 2022 to actually begin enforcing housing elements (ie, the builder’s remedy) and subsequent legislation to chip away at CEQA.
That’s exactly what we are working on! This summer was a huge one for CEQA reform in Sacramento. I actually think project in question in the article was the result of legislation giving the builder’s remedy teeth through CEQA streamlining.
You are wrong. The “induced demand” theory of housing supply has been repeatedly debunked. Supply benefits ultimately outweigh any localized induced demand (Meta study on the subject ).
That’s the first thing you do, because in California the Bay Area and Southern California have stymied housing production for almost 50 years.
And with regards to the “Dream For All” plan - subsidizing demand just further increases prices. And in any event funding for that program was oversubscribed, like, immediately.
What was interesting was the emergence of progressives embracing YIMBY rhetoric (NYC, Seattle and LA off the top of my head) and its seeming success as a political platform (Minneapolis with the notable traditional left NIMBY failure).