Office construction stops in San Francisco. The development fees from office construction are a major funding source for affordable housing. The affordable housing stops being built.
(Same thing happens for all the restrictions on market-rate housing, when it’s also paying fees to fund affordable housing. The end result is that very little gets built, which helps nobody but the increasingly rich homeowners in San Francisco. Which is the exact intended outcome of that group, who are the most reliable voters.)
Heh. I guess I’m a conflict theorist when it comes to homeowner NIMBYs, but a mistake theorist when it comes to lefty NIMBYs (who are just completely mistaken in their belief that preventing development will help the non-rich afford to live in SF).
I was speaking of inequality generally, not specifically housing inequality.
The entire point was a cheap shot at people who think that inequality is inherently bad, like suggesting destroying all the value to eliminate all the inequality.
Office construction stops in San Francisco. The development fees from office construction are a major funding source for affordable housing. The affordable housing stops being built.
(Same thing happens for all the restrictions on market-rate housing, when it’s also paying fees to fund affordable housing. The end result is that very little gets built, which helps nobody but the increasingly rich homeowners in San Francisco. Which is the exact intended outcome of that group, who are the most reliable voters.)
Heh. I guess I’m a conflict theorist when it comes to homeowner NIMBYs, but a mistake theorist when it comes to lefty NIMBYs (who are just completely mistaken in their belief that preventing development will help the non-rich afford to live in SF).
Preventing development limits the increase in desirability, which reduces market clearing price.
It’s more negative for the rich than for the poor, and as such reduces inequality.
[Edited to remove sarcasm.]
Wouldn’t that predict that San Francisco, which has built almost nothing since the 1970s in most neighborhoods, should have low inequality?
I was speaking of inequality generally, not specifically housing inequality.
The entire point was a cheap shot at people who think that inequality is inherently bad, like suggesting destroying all the value to eliminate all the inequality.
Ah, I’m just bad at recognizing sarcasm. In fact, I’m going to reword my comment above to remove the sarcasm.