undefined | Better HN

0 pointsska6y ago0 comments

>You will never see a left-leaning activist group representing the working class in California advocate for a market-based solution like permitting more for-profit development.

Is that really true? Elsewhere I have seen left-leaning activists advocate for higher density for-profit development housing so long as it is zoned to force developers to target all income groups in some manner, not just the most short term profitable ones. Is it really so different in California? You don't have to have a completely free market to have market based solution, after all. Which is a good thing as you're unlikely to ever see a truly free market there.

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

whatshisface6y ago· 1 in thread

Developers could target low income housing by building a bunch of megacondos to suck programmers out of the old neighborhoods.

closeparen6y ago

They call this “trickle down” and oppose it pretty strongly.

closeparen6y ago

What we typically see is fighting to maximize price-controlled units as a percentage of development while still minimizing overall development. A small, 100% affordable project preferred over a large, 20% affordable project, even if the latter yields more affordable homes.

If you believe that market-rate units accelerate gentrification, this even makes sense, as the more market-rate units you have, the more affordable units you'll need. The first priority is to minimize disruption to existing communities; BMR units are just a way of partially mitigating it when it does happen. Hence "we can't build our way out the housing crisis."

"De-commodify housing" is a lot sexier than "find the optimal BMR percentage requirement."

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse