Jump to content

Rent Control?


Avalon
 Share

This topic is 1360 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

It was being discussed on the radio. I'm torn over this. I live in the middle of nowhere. My rent is @25% of my income. I have lived in this apartment for 25+ years. New tenants pay more.

 

They said in San Francisco some people are paying 80% of their income for rent.

 

They were saying a major drawback to rent control is that it would cause a decrease in building new apartments.

 

I don't know what to think about the issue. I'm just fortunate to live where I do.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" ["Animal Farm"]

 

" ... my library was dukedom large enough" [Prospero - "The Tempest" Act 1, Scene 2]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is much clamoring for rent limitations in Seattle right now, since the price rises have been so dramatic over the last few years. While this has the potential to benefit some individuals in the short run by allowing them below-market housing costs, it really is a terrible public policy overall. It’s literally Econ 101 that price ceilings like rent control are inefficient and lead to undesired negative side-effects. http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ101/herriges/Lectures10/Chapter%205H-%20The%20Market%20Strikes%20Back.pdf. The production of fewer new apartments and an increase in run-down apartments are just two examples. Black markets also arise through sublets, and people are incentivized to not move to or from a city even though they would otherwise want to do so. Newcomers are legally prohibited from renting apartments, even though they are ready, willing, and able to pay more than incumbents; I think we all know that willing buyers and willing sellers tend to find ways to circumvent government prohibitions. https://fee.org/articles/the-case-against-rent-control/ Better to let the market respond to price signals rather than trying to short circuit them. For example, the high rents in Seattle have incentivized developers to create dramatically more apartment supply, and our massive building boom is finally starting to provide rent relief to people. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattle-area-rents-drop-significantly-for-first-time-this-decade-as-new-apartments-sit-empty/).

In the long run, this is the far better path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was being discussed on the radio. I'm torn over this. I live in the middle of nowhere. My rent is @25% of my income. I have lived in this apartment for 25+ years. New tenants pay more.

 

They said in San Francisco some people are paying 80% of their income for rent.

 

They were saying a major drawback to rent control is that it would cause a decrease in building new apartments.

 

I don't know what to think about the issue. I'm just fortunate to live where I do.

Rent control is not a housing program/policy. It's a consumer protection policy. Rent control is a stop gap measure, and really needs to be part of a much broader set of policies to deal with the market's failure to provide affordable housing. 95% of housing in the USA (rental/owner) is based on a profit/speculation basis.

Interestingly there is this right-wing trope against homeownership - homeownership ties people to their communities and imagine people in rust belt states won't sell and move to where the jobs are. Refusing to go where the employers need you - heresy to the neo-liberal economics of Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Trump

Edited by P Gren
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe instead of rent control there ought to be an expansion of the Section 8 program so that middle class people could live in places like San Francisco, Seattle etc..

 

https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" ["Animal Farm"]

 

" ... my library was dukedom large enough" [Prospero - "The Tempest" Act 1, Scene 2]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If none of you object I would love to join in on this topic and get some feedback. I'm in my final lap, about to graduate, and currently working on my senior thesis. The research I am working on is on mixed-use developments in affordable housing communities This study addresses the problem of the alarming and elusive mixed-income housing availability in this nation’s most expensive U.S. city (San Francisco.) It seems to me that efforts to provide a unique opportunity for the urban affordability crisis may seem impossible, but some of the research I have come across show that several cities made traction even after some fits and push back, which included Los Angeles (my former home state) Detroit, and Atlanta by eliminating outdated ordinances and proposing new housing density laws. Local municipalities in S.F. authorized developers to construct taller residential structures in exchange for making a percentage of the units more affordable that would that allow lower-income families to live the “California Dream."

 

This particular hot topic is a passion of mine and I have been a huge advocate of the Tiny House Movement for years here in Atlanta. I don't think it's okay when you see millennials still living at home even after graduating with a career and nice paying salary or our aging population that barely make enough income to survive and live independently if they choose. If you have worked hard your entire life you should theoretically, be able to sustain a comfortable life. As a gay man and the assumption I may end up alone this is a very scary thought.

 

I found some interesting articles if anyone is interested. I would love to hear more that could be incorporated into my project if anyone has any ideas, suggestions or thoughts...

 

www.planetizen.com/node/84670/new-design-guide-affordable-housing-developmentshttp://sf-planning.org/.

 

www.planetizen.com/news/2018/01/96765-how-did-cities-boost-affordable-housing-2017.

 

qz.com/1077050/san-francisco-is-americas-richest-major-metropolitan-area-rising-above-washington-dc-in-the-latest-rankings/.

RyanTurner

404-969-5356

Ryan_Turner_Atlanta (Instagram)

[email protected]

www.daddysreview.com/review/ryan_turner_hollywood

 

“People may not always remember what you said or did; But they will always remember how you made them feel”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was being discussed on the radio. I'm torn over this. I live in the middle of nowhere. My rent is @25% of my income. I have lived in this apartment for 25+ years. New tenants pay more.

 

They said in San Francisco some people are paying 80% of their income for rent.

 

They were saying a major drawback to rent control is that it would cause a decrease in building new apartments.

 

I don't know what to think about the issue. I'm just fortunate to live where I do.

 

I think rent control is unfair for those who own properties and got caught by politicians, and those who don't have connections to get in the line.

 

If someone is paying 80% on rent, he has to move and take the bus to work, get a new a job or suck it up and stop complaining. I know folks who live in Baltimore and commute to DC everyday, the have a cheap rent, yet they pay commuting 1 hour or more to work in Washington. To each their own.

 

I understand leaving some spots in new large buildings for rent control, but that should be temporary for 5 years, after that you have to face the music. I hate to sound like a republican on this one but we have already large parts of the country in Appalachia and the South hooked on others paying their bills, enough!

Liberal, born and raised in Maryland, proud member of pink pistols!

Ignore list: WilliamM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe instead of rent control there ought to be an expansion of the Section 8 program so that middle class people could live in places like San Francisco, Seattle etc..

 

https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8

 

Yes, no doubt!

 

But also a city like San Francisco with so much green doesn't need such a large park like Presidio, they could allow building a little bit higher * so many 1 floor buildings, what if they preserve the historical facades while adding a few floors behind. As much as I love history, the obsession with preservation and zoning is crazy.

 

Some homeowners in the Richmond district could build 1 floor higher and rent it, build a whole new apartment of 4 floors instead of the usual 2 floor house.

 

http://www.justinsfrealestate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Sunset-Richmond-1024x761.jpg

 

Polk Street has so many 1 floor buildings...

 

6000217052_d19310848a_b.jpg

 

* Before any of yinz say it Chile and Japan have been able to stand 8' earthquakes with new technologies they have developed.

Liberal, born and raised in Maryland, proud member of pink pistols!

Ignore list: WilliamM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think rent control is unfair for those who own properties and got caught by politicians, and those who don't have connections to get in the line.

 

If someone is paying 80% on rent, he has to move and take the bus to work, get a new a job or suck it up and stop complaining. I know folks who live in Baltimore and commute to DC everyday, the have a cheap rent, yet they pay commuting 1 hour or more to work in Washington. To each their own.

 

I understand leaving some spots in new large buildings for rent control, but that should be temporary for 5 years, after that you have to face the music. I hate to sound like a republican on this one but we have already large parts of the country in Appalachia and the South hooked on others paying their bills, enough!

The issue is market failure. The real estate market (which we have enshrined through a specific set of private property and contract laws) has failed to provide market housing for the entire market of consumers. It's market failure. It's time to re-write/re-think a lot of our real estate shibboleths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If none of you object I would love to join in on this topic and get some feedback. I'm in my final lap, about to graduate, and currently working on my senior thesis. The research I am working on is on mixed-use developments in affordable housing communities This study addresses the problem of the alarming and elusive mixed-income housing availability in this nation’s most expensive U.S. city (San Francisco.) It seems to me that efforts to provide a unique opportunity for the urban affordability crisis may seem impossible, but some of the research I have come across show that several cities made traction even after some fits and push back, which included Los Angeles (my former home state) Detroit, and Atlanta by eliminating outdated ordinances and proposing new housing density laws. Local municipalities in S.F. authorized developers to construct taller residential structures in exchange for making a percentage of the units more affordable that would that allow lower-income families to live the “California Dream."

 

This particular hot topic is a passion of mine and I have been a huge advocate of the Tiny House Movement for years here in Atlanta. I don't think it's okay when you see millennials still living at home even after graduating with a career and nice paying salary or our aging population that barely make enough income to survive and live independently if they choose. If you have worked hard your entire life you should theoretically, be able to sustain a comfortable life. As a gay man and the assumption I may end up alone this is a very scary thought.

 

I found some interesting articles if anyone is interested. I would love to hear more that could be incorporated into my project if anyone has any ideas, suggestions or thoughts...

 

www.planetizen.com/node/84670/new-design-guide-affordable-housing-developmentshttp://sf-planning.org/.

 

www.planetizen.com/news/2018/01/96765-how-did-cities-boost-affordable-housing-2017.

 

qz.com/1077050/san-francisco-is-americas-richest-major-metropolitan-area-rising-above-washington-dc-in-the-latest-rankings/.

Density does not equal affordability. If that was the case Manhattan would be super affordable. Building more of the same under the same rules will result in more of the same unaffordable housing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is market failure. The real estate market (which we have enshrined through a specific set of private property and contract laws) has failed to provide market housing for the entire market of consumers. It's market failure. It's time to re-write/re-think a lot of our real estate shibboleths.

 

and not everybody should own property... besides so many town houses here in DuPont Circle with just one gay man living there, even in the suburbs if you're by yourself, do you need a house with 3 bedrooms for your stuff?

 

@Avalon Did you start a thread about tiny apartments?

Liberal, born and raised in Maryland, proud member of pink pistols!

Ignore list: WilliamM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and not everybody should own property... besides so many town houses here in DuPont Circle with just one gay man living there, even in the suburbs if you're by yourself, do you need a house with 3 bedrooms for your stuff?

 

@Avalon Did you start a thread about tiny apartments?

 

Not I. I live in a fourplex in a row of fourplex. A two bedroom apartment.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" ["Animal Farm"]

 

" ... my library was dukedom large enough" [Prospero - "The Tempest" Act 1, Scene 2]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Density does not equal affordability. If that was the case Manhattan would be super affordable. Building more of the same under the same rules will result in more of the same unaffordable housing.

 

It's not just about building higher... one of the biggest problems for example is construction cost, in SF it's 60% higher than in Kansas City, but the median SF house costs seven times as much due to the difference in land costs this is the main reason why some cities are more expensive. But, this is based on the assumption that people would rather live in a newer building. However, specifically in SF the buildings were built many years ago. I know in Manhattan only about 1% of new housing was after 2010. What doesn't make sense is that if you're paying $4000 a month for a new construction why is the median the same for every other property. Here in Atlanta if a developer wants to build a new high-rise they would have to charge a minimum of $1300 for a 1 bedroom because of land costs. This is just one argument.

 

SF added about 38,000 jobs in one year but only 4,000 housing units and the same followed for NYC except the numbers for jobs were around 500,000 and maybe a 1/4 of that for houses built. The problem is that they aren't building enough in those areas which is driving the prices higher than they should be on top of all the other properties trying to compete. I think it's a win-win for developers and owners/renters if they continue building while forcing them to keep a percentage of those for "affordable housing units."

 

Another issue is the grossly over paid right out of college techs whose high-income labor force drives the divide between the haves and have not's... enter into the room gentrification.

RyanTurner

404-969-5356

Ryan_Turner_Atlanta (Instagram)

[email protected]

www.daddysreview.com/review/ryan_turner_hollywood

 

“People may not always remember what you said or did; But they will always remember how you made them feel”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is market failure. The real estate market (which we have enshrined through a specific set of private property and contract laws) has failed to provide market housing for the entire market of consumers. It's market failure. It's time to re-write/re-think a lot of our real estate shibboleths.

 

It is not just “market failure.” Government regulations and red tape are large contributors as well. I spend a lot of time in Laguna Beach. To build a house, make the slightest change or do any construction work is a lesson in why housing can cost so much.

 

For example, a man I know wanted to add air conditioning to his home. This required and outside unit about the size of a large suitcase. The new air conditioning units are super quiet. For starters, he had to notify all homeowners in about a 300 foot radius to attend a hearing. The whole process took about 8 months! He spent thousands just getting the permit and going through multiple hearings.

 

I understand land use regulations but there becomes a point when they are counter productive. Bureaucracy loves paperwork and power and it just grows beyond reason. The end result is expensive housing.

 

Yes, we need both building codes and land use regulations but they need to be reasonable. Often, they are not: think 8 months to install an air conditioner and the extra costs entailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, no doubt!

 

But also a city like San Francisco with so much green doesn't need such a large park like Presidio, they could allow building a little bit higher * so many 1 floor buildings, what if they preserve the historical facades while adding a few floors behind. As much as I love history, the obsession with preservation and zoning is crazy.

 

Some homeowners in the Richmond district could build 1 floor higher and rent it, build a whole new apartment of 4 floors instead of the usual 2 floor house.

 

http://www.justinsfrealestate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Sunset-Richmond-1024x761.jpg

 

Polk Street has so many 1 floor buildings...

 

6000217052_d19310848a_b.jpg

 

* Before any of yinz say it Chile and Japan have been able to stand 8' earthquakes with new technologies they have developed.

Its a very complex problem that extends far beyond San Francisco. One (of many) contributing factors is Silicon Valley cities such as Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Palo Alto generating thousands of high-paying jobs while refusing to develop new housing. This results in young tech workers living in San Francisco, and commuting to Silicon Valley in Google busses (and other private bus services tech companies provide their employees). The busses contribute to further traffic congestion in San Francisco, often interfering with San Francisco Muni busses. This also results in longtime residents of San Francisco, including teachers and others with middle class jobs and retired people who have lived here for decades being pushed out. Many of the people who made San Francisco a uniquely attractive place (beatniks, hippies, LGBTs, punks, artists, political activists and other non-conformists) have been forced out as the city becomes more and more wealthy and homogenized. Politicians such as our most recent mayors Ed Lee, Gavin Newsom & Willie Brown have sold the city out to wealthy tech donors and also looked the other way while Airbnb illegally converted thousands of rental units into vacation rentals for tourists.

 

As I said initially, its a very complex issue and I have only scratched the surface of the many factors contributing this massive Bay Area wide clusterfuck.

The Bay Area has long been balkanized politically with no one dominant city and a widely-dispersed population with each city and county developing its own policies with little regard for its effects on the entire region. We desperately need better regional planning to address our housing and transportation issues.

Hell hath no fury like a white conservative confronted with the unvarnished history of slavery and racism in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a couple dozen folks in San Francisco who, if it weren't for rent control, would have to leave the City. They've lived in their apartments in their neighborhoods for decades, long before the tech boom, and they have social networks that help define who they are. They also help define what San Francisco is and they contributed to making it a place where other folks want to live.

 

So I can't say that scattering them a hundred miles away in all directions would do them any good. Nor would it do San Francisco much good to have no one but high-paid tech workers living fifty stories in the sky.

 

high-construction-costs-e1514099469526.jpg

 

Personally, I've long believed that it does a society good to have diversity, including income diversity. Enclaves of wealth and enclaves of poverty, in my opinion, lead to insular thinking and detachment from the range of experiences that makes for social inclusiveness and stability.

 

I'm sure no expert in how to make that happen. But one thing that makes sense to me, as others have said, is to tie housing to job creation. A hundred years ago, that seemed like mainstream thinking with towns like Hershey, PA and Pullman, Chicago. From what I've read, workers in those towns considered themselves lucky to be there. Housing was designed to be local and affordable and social ties were strong.

 

At the other end of the planning - or lack of planning - continuum is the rapid job growth in Silicon Valley. When I went to school there in the late sixties, my rent was very affordable. That changed when the tech workers came in and spilled north to San Francisco where many of them preferred to live. With towns pimping for unlimited job growth, there was no thought at all given to where these new employees would live and how it would impact existing communities. Let alone traffic.

 

http://www.sillyid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/san-fransisco-traffic-jam.jpg

 

I'm glad there are folks smarter than I am working on the kind of planning necessary to match housing availability to employment availability. But the lack of such planning in the past has caused problems for others in the present. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for there to be some help, in the form of rent control, for those innocent folks whose only desire is to stay in their community.

 

june_27_015.jpg

 

PS: Just read @pitman 's post above and realize he said it all. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.png

'If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever made it.' - Tom Lehrer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a couple dozen folks in San Francisco who, if it weren't for rent control, would have to leave the City. They've lived in their apartments in their neighborhoods for decades, long before the tech boom, and they have social networks that help define who they are. They also help define what San Francisco is and they contributed to making it a place where other folks want to live.

 

So I can't say that scattering them a hundred miles away in all directions would do them any good. Nor would it do San Francisco much good to have no one but high-paid tech workers living fifty stories in the sky.

 

high-construction-costs-e1514099469526.jpg

 

Personally, I've long believed that it does a society good to have diversity, including income diversity. Enclaves of wealth and enclaves of poverty, in my opinion, lead to insular thinking and detachment from the range of experiences that makes for social inclusiveness and stability.

 

I'm sure no expert in how to make that happen. But one thing that makes sense to me, as others have said, is to tie housing to job creation. A hundred years ago, that seemed like mainstream thinking with towns like Hershey, PA and Pullman, Chicago. From what I've read, workers in those towns considered themselves lucky to be there. Housing was designed to be local and affordable and social ties were strong.

 

At the other end of the planning - or lack of planning - continuum is the rapid job growth in Silicon Valley. When I went to school there in the late sixties, my rent was very affordable. That changed when the tech workers came in and spilled north to San Francisco where many of them preferred to live. With towns pimping for unlimited job growth, there was no thought at all given to where these new employees would live and how it would impact existing communities. Let alone traffic.

 

http://www.sillyid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/san-fransisco-traffic-jam.jpg

 

I'm glad there are folks smarter than I am working on the kind of planning necessary to match housing availability to employment availability. But the lack of such planning in the past has caused problems for others in the present. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for there to be some help, in the form of rent control, for those innocent folks whose only desire is to stay in their community.

 

june_27_015.jpg

 

PS: Just read @pitman 's post above and realize he said it all. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.png

 

What if the parallels that is happening across the nations big cities in general, where for example the technology-driven culture in SF that is generating high wages and population that require density, join LA/SF together becoming a "mega-region" and now the only thing that separates the two is a high-speed rail. Obviously, we are a long time from that happening but could that help alleviate some of the issues and bring housing costs down perhaps? There needs to be some sort of network and discussion between economic communities to create better infrastructures that don't infringe on the small people which are suffering the most. I guess what I'm getting at in order to ease the cost of living, SF needs to continue being innovative and leading the next "waves" because like other major industries that have failed those regions suffered when industries left or declined which would impact the housing market.

RyanTurner

404-969-5356

Ryan_Turner_Atlanta (Instagram)

[email protected]

www.daddysreview.com/review/ryan_turner_hollywood

 

“People may not always remember what you said or did; But they will always remember how you made them feel”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a human characteristic to resist change, especially if it is involuntary change. People choose where they want to live based on more than just cost, and they don't want to have to move only because it becomes more costly to stay. That is why rent control appeals so strongly to renters who are content where they are. That is why someone who can no longer afford where he wants to live doesn't just say, "Oh, I guess I will move to X, because it is more affordable than where I am/where I want to be." The argument for market rents is economically rational; the argument for rent control is emotional. That doesn't mean the rational argument is better than the emotional one, only that they are different, and hard to reconcile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess what I'm getting at in order to ease the cost of living, SF needs to continue being innovative and leading the next "waves" because like other major industries that have failed those regions suffered when industries left or declined which would impact the housing market.

 

No reason San Francisco couldn't lead the charge to resolve some of these complex issues but, as you say, some of the problems may be regional and include larger regions than just the Bay Area.

 

And, as @Charlie says, opposing goals may be hard to reconcile.

 

Hard, yes, but I don't think it's impossible. One of the few enduring things I learned as an engineering undergrad was that, in order to solve a problem, you have to do a really good job of defining what it is. And I don't think we've done a good job of defining all the problems that arise when an employer brings in thousands of new jobs. And how much it will cost to solve them. And who should pay for it.

 

Right now, there are twenty cities fighting over who will attract Amazon's new second campus. They're falling all over themselves to make sure they get picked and attract 50,000 new jobs to their cities, but I doubt they've given much thought to preserving quality of life for their existing residents. And I don't think any of them have gone to Amazon with a bill for making sure they don't screw things up for the people who live there now.

 

Seems to me that it would be possible to figure out some of these costs. For example, what will it cost to build housing for 50,000 new workers and their families and the related workers who will support them? If they don't do that, where will these workers live, and what neighboring communities should be brought into the discussion? What will traffic be like when the new campus is opened, and how many hours will be added to regional commute times and what are those hours worth to those stuck in traffic? Who will be displaced from their homes, and what's the cost to them of moving somewhere else? And not only their relocation costs, but what about the cost of losing their social networks?

 

And once the whole list of costs is figured out, who should pay them? One of the articles you linked showed how Chipotle is sponsoring a "buy-down" program in Denver in which housing is purchased at market rates and then subsidized to make it more affordable. Definitely a good idea, but just one of many that will be necessary.

 

Your idea of high-speed rail helping to form mega-regions is another good one, and would no doubt endear you to California's Governor Brown. But, right now, he's getting a lot of pushback on the cost, which will be born by California taxpayers, not all of whom will benefit from the population growth and dispersal that will make the trains necessary.

 

What if Amazon were to get a bill not for the $5 billion they expect to pay for their new campus, but for $15 billion after related costs are included?

 

Proper identification and allocation of costs seems to be the way to solve this problem, but that will require a new way of thinking. Still, I don't see how the problem can be solved correctly without first defining it correctly. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif

'If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever made it.' - Tom Lehrer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if Amazon were to get a bill not for the $5 billion they expect to pay for their new campus, but for $15 billion after related costs are included?

 

The sad thing to me is not only will Amazon not get a bill for all the costs as you rightly suggest but the cities and states are offering billions to lure them directly plus have the added cost burden for the indirect costs. Lucky tax payers who "win" the new headquarters,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing to me is not only will Amazon not get a bill for all the costs as you rightly suggest but the cities and states are offering billions to lure them directly plus have the added cost burden for the indirect costs. Lucky tax payers who "win" the new headquarters,

This is what happens when you have corporate-controlled government. Profits generated from business are privatized while the costs are externalized, i.e. socialized.

Edited by pitman

Hell hath no fury like a white conservative confronted with the unvarnished history of slavery and racism in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing to me is not only will Amazon not get a bill for all the costs as you rightly suggest but the cities and states are offering billions to lure them directly plus have the added cost burden for the indirect costs. Lucky tax payers who "win" the new headquarters,

When the Bay Area was dropped from the list of contenders last week, it was hard to find much sense of loss. Folks interviewed on the local news seemed to think it was fine for somebody else to get a turn.

 

I don't necessarily think of companies like Amazon as "villains". They are bringing valuable jobs and tax revenues to the table. And it's not their fault that city leaders pay no attention to collateral costs. That's why I like the idea of bringing such costs into the equation for everyone to see. There may be areas with excess housing stock and plenty of transportation capacity where these costs would be minimal. And, when all the numbers were crunched, those areas would end up being a better fit for expansion.

'If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever made it.' - Tom Lehrer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...