|
|
|
|
|
by Kalium
1681 days ago
|
|
I find it best modeled as a collective action problem. SF in particular, and California in general, has handed out vetos on housing with a quite free hand. There are a great many people who have no particular reason to want to change their surroundings. Especially when they are keenly aware of how many of their neighbors will happily shoot down any effort they might make to make a killing. In short, the massive amount of cash is realistically not on the table in the eyes of many. What they do have is civic pride, property taxes decades out of step, and an ever-appreciating asset. All of which they can reasonably expect to pass on to their children. |
|
I'm a homeowner in a desirable area. In my area I see the urge to veto upzoning and keep the riff-raff out, keep traffic from getting worse, etc. pitted against the desire to increase affordability by upzoning. That opposition of interests makes sense. The idea that I could make a killing from upzoning never occurred to me. It seems very implausible.