|
|
|
|
|
by ericmay
1202 days ago
|
|
I know you don’t agree, but the results speak for themselves. I do agree that things don’t “have to be this way” but where I’d differ is that to solve the problem the vast majority of Americans or Seattle residents would disagree with how to solve that problem. You’d have to do something like tax people at 50-60% or their income to pay for the new housing and it just won’t work. Zoning slows down development sure but so do environmental review processes and such. Also even if new development was instantly approved it takes time to build and developers have to spend so much money on the land that they just build very expensive apartments or condos. But this doesn’t alleviate price pressure because the demand to live in Seattle is too high. The evidence is that like in the OP a chef at a top restaurant is living miserably in a 400sqft apartment just to be in Seattle instead of leaving to alleviate their own dissatisfaction. I’d also personally avoid framing things as such “build homes for the workers” because it implies a very top-down industrial capitalist or communist viewpoint that I think many are resistant to. Like water flows through the path of least resistance the easy solution here is people are just going to put up with it or move. If it’s a burden I recommend moving. If you think there is hope with price pressure relief you only have to look to Manhattan, because that’s the future you are facing in my opinion. -edit- For the example I can’t think of any tier-1 city that has gotten less expensive over time (please do not cite Tokyo or Japan) except maybe Chicago and even then I doubt that it has really gotten cheaper versus just not as expensive as fast as peer cities. |
|