- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Atlantic: the great affordability crisis breaking America
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:18 pm to teke184
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:18 pm to teke184
quote:Exactly. Tons affordable places, but leftists don’t want to lived with the unwashed.
How is this a national crisis if the problem is in about 10 major cities?
1
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:18 pm to Powerman
quote:
To where there is no opportunity for your skills?
Learn to code. My nephew traveled the world for 3 years and worked where ever he happened to be at the time.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:23 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
You want to make central living cheaper? Build vertically
The Bay Area has some hard core NIMBYs. They like their super wealthy, elite progressive communities and don’t want it disturbed by the hoards of tech-focused outsiders.
Not sure about the Boston area. But extremely long commutes and insane housing prices are the norm in the Bay Area.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:28 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
It is easy to ignore things until they affect you personally, right?
What’s easy is recognizing that expensive housing in 10 metro areas is not a national crisis.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:31 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Exactly. Tons affordable places, but leftists don’t want to lived with the unwashed.
The hard core NIMBY attitude towards any project that increases the housing supply or density in these hyper-progressive areas always struck me as incredibly hypocritical.
Those areas have a giant border wall around them called "costs of living". Yet they call everyone else racist for demanding a secure border.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:32 pm to Flats
quote:
What’s easy is recognizing that expensive housing in 10 metro areas is not a national crisis.
I am sure you thought the same thing about subprime lending and house foreclsures on the opposite end of the country.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:32 pm to dewster
My guess on Boston is a mix of things including infrastructure, density, and NIMBYism.
Boston traffic is some of the worst in the world. It is very densely packed in a lot of areas to where there isn’t a lot of new housing that could go in without taking out old housing, and there is a LOT of old money in the city because it was the home of the money during the American Revolution.
Outlying areas are an option there but the commute is a bitch.
Boston traffic is some of the worst in the world. It is very densely packed in a lot of areas to where there isn’t a lot of new housing that could go in without taking out old housing, and there is a LOT of old money in the city because it was the home of the money during the American Revolution.
Outlying areas are an option there but the commute is a bitch.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:33 pm to Powerman
quote:
Maybe ask yourself what % of the population lives in these 10 cities?
Approximately 8%. And let's face it. People like Nancy Pelosi want housing in their neighborhoods/cities to be expensive so the undesirables are kept far away.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:34 pm to ljhog
Considering the homelessness issue in SF, it shouldn’t be hard to send them all out to her district in Marin County.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:34 pm to ljhog
quote:
People like Nancy Pelosi want housing in their neighborhoods/cities to be expensive so the undesirables are kept far away.
Bingo.
Pelosi's neighborhood is actually on a private street. You can't even park on it without a permit.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:38 pm to teke184
quote:
Boston traffic is some of the worst in the world. It is very densely packed in a lot of areas to where there isn’t a lot of new housing that could go in without taking out old housing, and there is a LOT of old money in the city because it was the home of the money during the American Revolution.
Outlying areas are an option there but the commute is a bitch.
Terrain could be an issue too with Boston. Don't they have some serious commuter rail systems there like Chicago does?
ETA: Just looked. They have one, but not as extensive as Chicago. Their highway network is no match for the bigger Texas cities too.
This post was edited on 2/10/20 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:38 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
I thought I remembered reading that in San Fran and Austin there are severe restrictions against high rise living spaces, artificially restricting the number of people that can live in a given square footage.
Very true.
Another problem in major cities is central locations have extremely high commercial value which bids up the price of already scarce land.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:42 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
What do the politics ... have to do with this?
A lot
quote:
What do the ... tax structure have to do with this?
Very little
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:46 pm to uway
quote:
But am I wrong to suspect that absent all government intervention, these places would be populated virtually entirely by upper class people?
Yes. Without restrictions, developers and builders could build what demand called for. Less expensive high rise apartments.
quote:
It makes the shortage worse and the quality of housing worse. But does it make housing less affordable?
Yes. By making shortages worse it makes existing prices higher.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:49 pm to Wtodd
Don't live in Metro Cities.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:50 pm to The Pirate King
Is that really a problem? Higher home prices keep crime out of the cities
Posted on 2/10/20 at 12:51 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I am sure you thought the same thing about subprime lending and house foreclsures on the opposite end of the country.
Yeah, because that only happened in 10 cities. The situations are virtually identical.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 1:15 pm to uway
quote:
But am I wrong to suspect that absent all government intervention, these places would be populated virtually entirely by upper class people?
Well, I'm not a fan of vague terms like "upper class" but sure, it would skew upwards. Alas, absent the piling on by govt, at least the bottom rung would be lower.
And, that would work it's way outward. Think in concentric circles. Right now, if you want to work in these places but can't afford to live there, you commute. Alas, govt is piling on THERE too!
So, at each circle, your bottom rung would be lower. Hence, reducing the distances involved required to afford working somewhere.
quote:Of course. I mean, I know you're not an econ guy, but think it thru. Rent controls kill the desire of developers to add capacity. Would you add capacity if YOU were a developer in that environment?
It makes the shortage worse and the quality of housing worse. But does it make housing less affordable?
quote:Well yeah. It's more than taxes.
If the problem is affordability, and it is, and the discussion is revolving around taxes, that seems like missing the point.
The POINT is, if a place is going to trend more $$, having the govt do shite that inevitably drives costs up even more is idiotic. And yet, in every one of these places, govt is doing just that.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 1:17 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:And govt contributes MIGHTILY to the latter
High demand for a limited supply of real estate.
Posted on 2/10/20 at 1:20 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
And govt contributes MIGHTILY to the latter
Not as much as geography does. Each are limited by water as to how much they can grow spatially.
Page 7 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News