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?
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
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.
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?