[tmnvix]

I'm not going to argue that building more housing will not help the situation, but I think it would also be worth looking at some of the underlying reasons for the lack of available housing.

I would bet my bottom dollar that the proportion of residences that are not used as a primary residence is higher today than it was 30 years ago.

A few reasons that this would be the case in my opinion:

- A second home (holiday home, pied-à-terre, land-banked, etc) used to cost you money, but with capital gains as they have been for the past few decades now makes you money - so naturally more people will take advantage if they have the means to.

- Investing in housing has advantages that other types of investments don't (residential mortgage rates are lower than rates for business loans, leveraging, tax advantages, etc).

- Short term renting is now incredibly convenient and lucrative.

I think any government that is seriously interested in addressing the housing crisis should start by determining how much of the housing stock is not used as a primary residence.

Sure, build more housing, but there are some simple regulatory changes that could improve the situation with little effort in my opinion.

[wilg]

A lot of people think this, but it's not a meaningful counterargument, nor do I think there are simple regulatory changes that would help much. https://journal.firsttuesday.us/californias-distinctly-low-v...

[tmnvix]

Thanks for sharing this link. It's rare to see people acknowledge the difference between the actual vacancy rate and the vacancy rate as measured by the proportion of properties in the rental market that are currently unoccupied.

9% as stated in the article is a lot in my opinion. That roughly one in every ten houses is not currently a primary residence points to a big problem (as I suggested in my earlier comment).

Could you elaborate on why you suggest this figure (or the content of the linked article) makes my argument not meaningful?

[wilg]

Here's a better link about vacancies, actually: https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/02/there-are-not-40000-...

I just don't think the numbers hold that second homes and short-term renting account for the problem. Remember, California needs to build four million new homes just to deal with existing demand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage

IIRC also Vancouver (which is I think even more expensive than SF) tried to tax vacant homes and stuff and I don't think it made a dent. https://vancouversun.com/business/real-estate/three-years-in...

I'm not sure why people are so resistant to the obvious solution, but it seems to me no matter how you look at it, you just end up coming back to the most effective thing to do is going to be to get more housing built.