In my opinion, he did a lot better this time. He was able to point out some major issues. His opponent this time was also better, and seemed to have a better handle on data (though possibly flawed or mis-interpreted data). His opponent did try to talk over him but the interviewer for Take 5 managed to stop him. I would have some recommendations though, mostly to aleviate the deer-in-headlights syndrome that can occur.
1) Before the interview, go through the potential arguments the pro-soft-landing, pro-continued-increase groups may bring up (bulleted list). Write down counter args and support info for those args. It may help to bring this to interview.
2) Bring pad and paper. It will be rude to interrupt and correct the opposing view when they are speaking, but write down a one to three word description of what point they are making. On your turn to reply, you can use these notes to directly address the points they have made. (If they interrupt while you are speaking you can counter that they are being rude and they will have their time to counter as you are doing now). I have noticed that the pro-RE group seems to try to talk over the other person.
One of the points that was brought up and not dealt with is the internal growth in population within San Diego. The truth is that the ‘native’ growth is very slow (the old 2.4 kids formula). With more people in the technical fields delaying when they have children and reducing the number of children they have, the population growth factor has tipped to being slightly negative. The offsetting amount has been immigration (legal and illegal). This is part of what has made the whole illegal immigration thing such a hot topic. It allows corporations to pay a lower wage (raises supply of labor), and increases housing costs (increases demand for housing) = profits for builders/RE agents/ etc in the RE business. Most new immigrants with little education also have many children, increasing the growth factor.
Since I mentioned the 2.4 child rate per family, lets take a look at that. For estimates sake, we can state that all children are born simultaneously at about 30 years of age on the parents (those with little education are earlier, more education are later). Since the parents eventually die, the increase is 40% over 30 years, or a 1.12% per year rate of increase (takes time for the children to also have children of their own.. another 30 years and 2 of the children replace the parents in the population with the 0.4 fractional child being the growth). The rate of increase in the cost of housing should be roughly rate of inflation + percent population growth.
