Awwww the truth hurts your feelings? Poor baby!
Board dems scared?
- Thread starter DooBi
- Start date
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,944
- 204,286
- 113
That was a policy choice.
Is the solution to unaffordable housing prices in parts of California simple? Yes. It is as simple as supply and demand. What gets complicated is evading the obvious, because it is politically painful.
One of the first things taught in an introductory economics course is supply and demand. When a growing population creates a growing demand for housing, and the government blocks housing from being built, the price of existing housing goes up.
This is not a breakthrough on the frontiers of knowledge. Economists have understood supply and demand for centuries — and so have many other people who never studied economics.
Housing prices in San Francisco, and in many other communities for miles around, were once no higher than in the rest of the United States. But, beginning in the 1970s, housing prices in these communities skyrocketed to three or four times the national average.
Why? Because local government laws and policies severely restricted, or banned outright, the building of anything on vast areas of land. This is called preserving “open space,” and “open space” has become almost a cult obsession among self-righteous environmental activists, many of whom are sufficiently affluent that they don’t have to worry about housing prices.
Some others have bought the argument that there is just very little land left in coastal California, on which to build homes. But anyone who drives down Highway 280 for thirty miles or so from San Francisco to Palo Alto, will see mile after mile of vast areas of land with not a building or a house in sight.
How “complex” is it to figure out that letting people build homes in some of that vast expanse of “open space” would keep housing from becoming “unaffordable”?
Was it just a big coincidence that housing prices in coastal California began skyrocketing in the 1970s, when building bans spread like wildfire under the banner of “open space,” “saving farmland,” or whatever other slogans would impress the gullible?
When more than half the land in San Mateo County is legally off-limits to building, how surprised should we be that housing prices in the city of San Mateo are now so high that politically appointed task forces have to be formed to solve the “complex” question of how things got to be the way they are and what to do about it?
However simple the answer, it will not be easy to go against the organized, self-righteous activists for whom “open space” is a sacred cause, automatically overriding the interests of everybody else.
Was it just a coincidence that some other parts of the country saw skyrocketing housing prices when similar severe restrictions on building went into effect? Or that similar policies in other countries have had the same effect? How “complex” is that?
If I had to back this person, I would be horrified
Doesn’t take much to get you ‘horrified’ does it, Sally?
OP is probably like me, sick of one side consuming every thread. We can't even have a normal everyday thread on music/life/etc. without someone posting something about Trump. WE ARE SICK OF IT!!!
Yeah, that's REALLY weird compared to all the ridiculous nonsense Trump blathers on about. That made me long for the days of Obama wearing a bicycle helmet.
You Republicans are wackadoos.
Who are you backing these days? I know it was originally Trump then DeSantis then Kennedy.
Fukin terrified. The idea that that old dementia ridden lunatic could go on a revenge tour should scare everyone. The fact that it's close should scare you even more.
Trump, Harris Odds of Winning in Every Recent Major Poll With 17 Days Left
As the 2024 presidential race enters its final stretch, recent polls indicate momentum for former President Donald Trump in his contest against Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump has maintained strong polling numbers for two consecutive weeks, benefiting from favorable trends.
MSN
www.msn.com
So, most of which was pointing out every thread someone has to bring him up. But I would like to thank you for creeping my posts. It's nice to know you did your homework and tried finding out if I'm a Trump supporter or not. Sucks for you that you couldn't find what you were looking for. Funny part is you didn't mention what my posts where about, just that I mentioned him.
Troll!
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,944
- 204,286
- 113
Yes, NC, listen the northern, liberal elite who is a parasite that never worked a day in his life, while being a marxist, pothead and drunk. Ya, boy, he really knows what's best for you! Probably didn't send a nickel for flood relief, but elected the bitch who left you suffer.
Because she loves Gen Z? She's going to love them even more after the election because they will likely vote overwhelmingly for her over the other candidates.
Drumpf definitely creates a code red type situation for the 1st time in my lifetime. The scary thing is so many seemingly normal people don’t seem to recognize it. See many posters on here. Regardless of party, people should be mortified of Drumpf winning. Does nearly all of the former generals that worked for him coming out against him not alarm people? Does voting for the guy Russia, China, and Iran want not alarm people?
It's not that simple. You can't build on every available inch of open space. There's just not enough natural resources. Hell, SoCal already gets most of its water from NorCal. Adding another 10 million people to SoCal by swallowing up open space isn't the answer. And your editorial primarily focused on San Francisco, which is unlike every other part of California.
Property cheap in SF?
They oughta get their water through desal and quit ****ing up the environment.
https://www.montecitojournal.net/20...nia-learn-from-israel-about-water-management/
SF is very expensive. It's located on a peninsula between the ocean and the SF Bay. The only open space is Golden Gate Park and the Presidio, which is a closed military base owned by the National Park Service. There is no remaining open space in SF.
Not to point out the obvious, but why not build on the other side of the bay?
What's stopping that since the 1970s?
They ran out of space, dude. There's nearly 8 million people living in the Bay area. Less than a million live in SF because it's a tiny area in terms of sq miles.
Where do you suggest they build?
You can scroll around with a satellite view and see tons and tons of space, multiple times larger than SF, that are unbuilt in the vicinity.
The trade off to that is limited supply and sky high prices. It's not that there isn't land, they're just not allowed to build on it.
Policy choice.
That's very naive.
Most of the available space you're referring to is on top of mountains with no main roads or utility services. Or it's 70 miles away from core business centers in the Bay Area.
You don't know shit about the bay area or California, and you're talking out of both sides of your ass.
Last edited:
