/sarcasmoff

Another Republican betrayal of the little guy at the behest of big business. Forgive me if I look at all your proposed "solutions" with more than a grain of salt.

The article suppressed any mention of the historical processes by which the original residents of the now-cheap digs had worked their way into better economic circumstances, and had moved away into more comfortable suburbs.

Now that the intellectual purveyors of growth 'management' (Jim Miller very accurately fingers them as urban colonists) have succeeded in politically abolishing such outward movement, those who work their way into more prosperity are forced into competition for living space with the residents of low-tech, low-glamor, low-rent properties. Surprise! Rising demand, fixed supply, and of course the price goes up.

Watch those intellectuals closely. See what part of the laws of supply and demand and free economic exchange they'll try next to abolish politically.

Want to create slums? Institute rent control and wait 30 years.

Liberal dogma tends to look at the trees instead of the forest. They view the problem of housing cost within the framework of entitlement. It's a forgone conclusion in their minds that rent control and Prop 13 are permanent fixtures, so then, the challenge becomes how to band-aid housing costs, while ignoring the ecomomic reality, as if that is even possible.

The same is true for how they view social security.

The word for their overall philosophy is: totaled.

Don’t worry, they're heeding SF’s mess all right . . . and they're copying it.
You know the liberal econ 101 creed. Why let economics take their more natural
and sensible course when you can interfere and screw everyone up.

When it comes to your statement that "Both forms of rent control offer perverse incentives for a dweller to remain in their current home longer they would otherwise" ... I take exception.

Regarding Prop 13, you need to bear in mind what was happening when this thing passed in California, is we had a slew of retirees who could not afford to pay the taxes on the homes where they expected to live out their lives. On top of this, California also has a state income tax, PLUS their sales tax is almost as high as Washingtons!

With a fixed tax rate of 1.25% (and that is misleading, because they DO add accessments)I have little sympathy for a government that has to learn to budget. Home ownership is part of the American Dream and I don't believe that when I reach the age of retirement I should be expected to be taxed out of my home.

It's called Economics, stupid. I can't believe I live in a town whose leaders have never failed to fawn over every dumb idea that comes along. God help us all.

And yet, folks get mad that Paul Allen wants to build 10,000 condos on South Lake Union. Do you know what dumping 10,000 condos onto the market will do to area prices?

Of course there will be the typical allenesque rip off of the TAXPAYER >> supported "low income" units tossed in to show the "civic" mindedness of the whole joke --

One of the biggest reasons for the high real estate prices is that people are having to pay for real property with paper money - combined with just plain greed on the part of people who own several housing units and gov't agencies who never miss a chance to artificially drive up values and increase housing densities in order to increase tax revenues.

A friend from NYC once advised me that the way to create more low-income housing is to create more high-income housing. Then new stuff pushes the older stuff "down market". That sounds like a pretty reasonable market-based solution. It's esay, makes sense, appears to have the correct incentives, etc. I just don't know if it'd work until it's tried.

I firmly believe that people should have an opportunity to live near where they work. I despair that couples starting out won't be able to afford a home. (It was quite the stretch for us 15 years ago. It's so much worse now.) Or, even worse, spend their lives driving between work, daycare, and the house, instead of with their families. And I have zero problems helping people who need help, like the homeless, poor, and disabled.

That said, even though I currently support low-income housing efforts, I'm dubious of their effectiveness. I'm definitely keen to try new ideas, like my friend's suggestion.

And when the political economy (meaning one controlled by cliques doing their best to abolish supply and demand by fiat) forces stratospheric pricing onto in-City real estate, this means that businesses need to move outward to suburban locations where workers can find lower-cost housing - provided the cliques don't succeed in prohibiting the willing sale of building lots to willing buyers.

And to my fellow Sierra Clubbers who desperately trumpet the 'urban sprawl' mantra, I say, look at the demographics of the USA for the last 70 years. Urban sprawl is more than balanced by the enormous migration of rural residents into cities, leaving vast acreage to undisturbed possession of its flora and fauna. That's a feature, not a bug.

What looks like "liberal complexity" is really just a complete incapacity to reason.

Of course you are correct about supply and demand, but that's because you paid attention in Econ 101.

One more time: It's not the government's role to try and solve every problem. That is why we're America and not Sweden. (A beautiful place that is screwed up beyond belief, economically and politically. Don't believe me? Talk to a Swede.)