[374733636373384]

Opinions aside, I can't edit this post due to its length so I wanted to call out two typos that I think add a lot of confusion. In the last paragraph, the "either" in the second to last sentence just shouldn't be there and "banshee" should be "balance".

[jelliclesfarm]

Can you try again? 20 words or less as bullet points. I didn’t understand most(actually almost all) of it.

[374733636373384]

We nickle and dime people for good reasons but we have so many good reasons to do it that it compounds into negative outcomes for many people who aren't either doing well or doing so poorly they get a lot of aid. Augmenting this, a lot of our well intentioned ideas also have shortcomings that prevent them from realizing their goals. Aside from nickle and diming people to death, we have a lot of restrictions in our larger cities that prevent building sufficient amounts of housing to create downward pricing pressure. Of those restrictions, one of the most prevalent is height limits which inhibit building in greater densities to make more efficient use of the space. Two of the main political reasons these restrictions don't see much review is because a lot of vocal groups think they ruin the view/skyline while local homeowners (who wouldn't be living in the high density housing) fear that their property values will go down which is bad because for many of them their home is their primary asset.

Edit: We're at the post limit so I'm adding my response to jelliclesfarm's below post here. Put simply, I agree with your assessment of the situation. My point was that the combined effect of all the various political entities compounded with material concerns is the reason why, even if the motivations are good, we're still seeing an exodus of people. If you were to ask my personal feelings specifically on how to resolve the issue of local home owners I'd argue to still remove the height limits but (since the renters moving in are already saving money by way of downward pressure) implement a modest, in the real way, tax that goes to affected local home owners as compensation and which can't be claimed by children who inherit the house under prop 13. By definition the home owners would be heavily outnumbered by renters in new units across the city and the compensation can be capped at roughly whatever the owner's losses are assessed to be.

[jelliclesfarm]

Right. Got it. I have heard this position before.

One can’t go to a market without a bargaining chip. At the negotiating table for high density, there is nothing to convince property owners to give in and give up their priorities.

In any game, there is a winner and a loser. In the housing game, who wins and who loses? Who has the bargaining chip and who has the winning set?

Now... why should any home owner give in to high density when a crowded city brings in no direct visible benefit to them?

Obviously, if there are benefits...everyone would be tripping over themselves to build higher and go vertical.

So far, there has only been the threat of higher taxes and open calls to get rid of home owner benefits. The weak and needy are shaking a stick at the fat and the rich. Hardly the honey to attract the flies.

Threats to raise taxes is not a winning strategy. It’s just vinegar. Wont work.