« previous   misc   next »

Occupy Pete's Harbor

By tovarichpeter   Follow   Sun, 2 Dec 2012, 2:10am PST   246 views   2 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  


Comments 1-2 of 2     Last »

Peter P   Sun, 2 Dec 2012, 3:12am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 1

Redevelopment sounds good to me.

curious2   Sun, 2 Dec 2012, 7:33am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 2

Any development in the SF Bay area becomes controversial because the regulatory structure is designed to maximize markups that can get shared out to political campaigns and community organizing. If we had good quality standards (requiring safety and sound design), without maximum quantity restrictions, then the market would quickly create plenty of supply and many jobs along the way. Instead, we have quantity restrictions, with the result that only "upscale" (Realtorspeak for overpriced junk) can get built, and that gets taxed further to pay for "affordable" (below market rate) housing that gets rationed out to politicians' nephews. I can understand the owners want to develop the property to its most valuable use, and the residents want a cheap place to live. Alas neither side proposes to solve the real problem, which is the same restrictions that prevent development are the same restrictions that make housing unaffordable. The owners want their profit without competition from deregulation, and the renters want their space without having to buy anything, so the familiar battle lines are drawn and the game plays out like football: words will be exchanged and intercepted, one side will "win" and the other will lose, and everyone pays.

tovarichpeter is moderator of this thread.



Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net