|
A Buttery Pastry posted:A solution that's "Wait literally decades" is not really a solution, is it? Especially when you consider continually growing populations. If luxury apartments becoming regular affordable apartments (+ construction of the latter) doesn't happen faster than the growth of the portion of the population who demand these affordable apartments, then the issue won't ever actually go away. And even if population growth is outpaced by the creation of affordable homes, the fact that the population is growing will still delay supply matching demand in a manner that's not economically crippling for many people. Having too many people who want to live in the same area drives higher prices. There is no real solution to this outside of increasing supply via larger buildings with smaller apartments. Or are you intending to propose insanity like rent caps? I don't see why society at large should be obligated to subsidize the costs of living in a high-demand area (or even concerned about it). This isn't food or water we're talking about. If the price is too high, then move somewhere else. But I suppose there's "literally no jobs" anywhere outside of San Fransico etc so suggesting that people who can't afford to live in high demand areas shouldn't live there is the equivalent of letting families starve in the streets or something.
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 06:35 |
|