Florida and Texas each build more new housing than CA, NY, MA, and IL combined (each effectively run by a single party).
The answer is here, people just don't want it.
The answer is here, people just don't want it.
The sad reality is that a lot of the people who shout the loudest about the problems of wealth and systemic inequality with their words, do very little or even the opposite with their actions.
There's probably similar psychology at play as to why it's common advice to not tell people about your personal goals. The act of proclaiming what you want to do gives you that little kick of dopamine that saps your motivation for actually doing it, making it less likely that you'll actually follow through. Waiting until after your accomplishment to share your success is much more effective.
In the case of moral virtue signalling, it seems like the act of proclaiming your virtue is much more likely to give you a feeling of moral license that makes you feel ok about acting immorally to serve your self interest.
In short, be suspicious of people who virtue signal too much, and judge them by their actions and results, not by their words or intent.
It seems like a complete waste of time to try to declare a political victory here.
They already need a highway expansion in Austin because of it
OTOH, Texas and Florida are both a fraction of a population compared to the sum of NY + CA + MA + IL.
By the way, even the states you listed (not nearly growing as fast as TX/FL) are still building more per capita than the NY / CA / MA / IL.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1240622/new-residential-...
Texas and Florida are the 2nd and 3rd most populous states. That is misleading because you're comparing 3 out of the top 6 most populous states with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
California, especially the bay Area, is notorious for being anti-development. The landed class will furiously fight any attempt to build dense housing, to keep property prices high. Rent control exacerbates this as most residents have no incentive to solve the housing shortage since they aren't affected by price increases.
Washington, by contrast, prohibits rent control statewide. It's no coincidence I'm seeing far more construction in Seattle and it's suburbs than I did SF.
I’m just balking at the audacity of comparing Massachusetts to Texas and implying their comparable on the basis of their politics more so than their geography.
That is completely and totally wrong.
The land cost is BY FAR the biggest driver of housing cost in the California coastal cities.
The proof of this is that buying a house, completely demolishing it, and building a completely new house is not uncommon in California.
That demonstrates that everything except the land has a negative value.
The problem is that people want to live in the desirable costal cities. The only way that's going to happen is if the city gets more dense. Cities that allow for easy construction are better able to convert low density housing in desirable areas to high density housing to accommodate the growing demand.
The fact that buyers demolish shows that the cost of labor and materials is significantly less than the value of the land. "losing money on destroying the old house but prefer that location" === value of the land is higher than the cost of the rebuild.
In most real estate transactions where the home is clearly a tear down, it's priced in.
It seems like might have never viewed a property tax bill.
Here's my neighbor's house built in 2022 appraised values:
land: $465,000 improvements: $620,000
MA housing isn’t even particularly bad. I never paid more than $900 in rent.
When did you live in MA? You'd have to go over an hour west for that at this point.
With roommates but never sharing a bedroom
Recent