[firejake308]

Not building enough housing? It seems like they've built 164,121 housing units too many. I think that the more correct explanation is that speculative investors are holding onto property indefinitely rather than selling or renting at a loss, preventing housing from falling back to its true equilibrium value.

[lotsofpulp]

I.e. insufficient land value tax rates. California created a class of feudal lords with prop 13 who get to reap disproportionate societal resources from newcomers.

Edit: the solution to which is not allowing squatters disproportionate access to others’ property via unnecessarily long court procedures. Residental agreements should be filed with the county just like land sales are, so a cop can quickly lookup who legally belongs and act accordingly.

[bsder]

Also the need for an "occupancy tax".

You can claim whatever rental rate you want as a basis for your financialization agreements, but you should have to start paying taxes as though you are receiving that number as actual cash rent after some limited grace period.

That would stop most of the shenanigans by private equity in the rental markets.

[astrange]

It's not "indefinite". Most vacant housing units are not vacant for a long time. They might still be under construction or might just be turning over for the next resident in a week.

https://darrellowens.substack.com/p/vacant-nuance-in-the-vac...

In LA it's mostly because the power company takes like, months to hook up new buildings for no reason.

[yesfitz]

And if we built more housing units in the Bay Area (increased supply), do you think that would make speculative investors' housing units increase or decrease in value?

[wiml]

The Bay Area (according to the first hit on ddg) has roughly 40,000 homeless people, so I posit that they've built at most 124k units too many.