[82 Card]

I really don't think you understand what WIM is saying. The point is that because of NIMBY changes to zoning laws it's actually illegal to build with any kind of reasonable density in a lot of places. The result of this is that all that gets built are big projects with the $1M+ condos, because that's what developers can actually afford to do. If SF decided that it wanted to, it could fit twice as many people just by becoming as dense as Brooklyn. Not Manhattan, Brooklyn. What would doubling the number of people living in the city do to prices? I'm not an economist, but I think they'd go down.

Sure, accomplishing that would actually take a while, so it wouldn't happen overnight, but you'd alleviate a lot of the pressure on prices just by alleviating zoning restrictions. This is why people flock to Texas, zoning is so liberal that you can actually do what you want with your land.

And that's what this comes down to: being able to do what you want with your land. Right now you can't, because of a whole host of pointless and counterproductive regulations. People like WIM and I want to deregulate, allow people to do what they want with their land (obviously within reason), and let the free market decide things like:

1) How dense to build.
2) How many parking spaces to provide.
3) How big to make units.
4) What amenities to include in units.
5) What rents to charge.

And on and on. Right now land use in most of the US is more Soviet-style than you'd think, and it's stupid and counterproductive.

It's not quite that simple. I agree that current land use regulation is a large part of the problem, but just turning it over to the free market will not achieve more efficient land use. Reasonable planning and regulation is necessary for higher densities to work.

The incentive for each individual property owner is to pack as much as they can into their property. But if each owner does that, there will be gridlock. The infrastructure needs to be designed and built to handle the load. Each owner cannot do that on their own. The land uses have to be kept in line with infrastructure.

The driving force behind a lot of the ridiculous zoning is refusal to invest money for infrastructure. We have crumbling roads, sewers and transit systems. Nobody wants to pay to bring them up to date and expand them. Instead of rebuilding or expanding systems that are beyond their useful life, we try to get the new people to pay for it all, as if it's all their fault. A more rational approach would be to plan out the infrastructure needed for higher density, get funding mechanisms for it in place and raise the allowed densities. But this can't be done because it would require tax money and tax money would cause blown gaskets. Instead, we choke off supply and end up paying higher costs anyway.

[82 Card]

I really don't think you understand what WIM is saying. The point is that because of NIMBY changes to zoning laws it's actually illegal to build with any kind of reasonable density in a lot of places. The result of this is that all that gets built are big projects with the $1M+ condos, because that's what developers can actually afford to do. If SF decided that it wanted to, it could fit twice as many people just by becoming as dense as Brooklyn. Not Manhattan, Brooklyn. What would doubling the number of people living in the city do to prices? I'm not an economist, but I think they'd go down.

Sure, accomplishing that would actually take a while, so it wouldn't happen overnight, but you'd alleviate a lot of the pressure on prices just by alleviating zoning restrictions. This is why people flock to Texas, zoning is so liberal that you can actually do what you want with your land.

And that's what this comes down to: being able to do what you want with your land. Right now you can't, because of a whole host of pointless and counterproductive regulations. People like WIM and I want to deregulate, allow people to do what they want with their land (obviously within reason), and let the free market decide things like:

1) How dense to build.
2) How many parking spaces to provide.
3) How big to make units.
4) What amenities to include in units.
5) What rents to charge.

And on and on. Right now land use in most of the US is more Soviet-style than you'd think, and it's stupid and counterproductive.

It's not quite that simple. I agree that current land use regulation is a large part of the problem, but just turning it over to the free market will not achieve more efficient land use. Reasonable planning and regulation is necessary for higher densities to work.

The incentive for each individual property owner is to pack as much as they can into their property. But if each owner does that, there will be gridlock. The infrastructure needs to be designed and built to handle the load. Each owner cannot do that on their own. The land uses have to be kept in line with infrastructure.

The driving force behind a lot of the ridiculous zoning is refusal to invest money for infrastructure. We have crumbling roads, sewers and transit systems. Nobody wants to pay to bring them up to date and expand them. Instead of rebuilding or expanding systems that are beyond their useful life, we try to get the new people to pay for it all, as if it's all their fault. A more rational approach would be to plan out the infrastructure needed for higher density, get funding mechanisms for it in place and raise the allowed densities. But this can't be done because it would require tax money and tax money would cause blown gaskets. Instead, we choke off supply and end up paying higher costs anyway.