- This topic has 26 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 5 months ago by
latesummer2008.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 25, 2007 at 2:38 PM #55050May 25, 2007 at 2:38 PM #55065
no_such_reality
ParticipantDoes anybody have a link to the slides? They’d be interesting to see, the lecture was really good.
May 25, 2007 at 2:40 PM #55052PerryChase
ParticipantYes, the keyword is cheap.
We need comfortable (but not luxury) 2bd/2bt condos for $100k. That’s what our economy needs. Families can then spend money on other things and not be stressed out making the mortgage/rent payments. If we really care about our society’s well being, we’d work to lower the cost of housing (in terms of % of income spent).
I think that we should encourage density. People who want to live in SFR can still do so but they’ll pay more. That’s only fair because it costs a lot more to service SFRs in terms of trash, sewer, electrical, cable, phone, police, etc… SFR developers should be required to pay for the cost of extending services to the suburbs. (I live in an SFR in the suburb so it’s a not a question of McMansion envy)
May 25, 2007 at 2:40 PM #55067ParticipantYes, the keyword is cheap.
We need comfortable (but not luxury) 2bd/2bt condos for $100k. That’s what our economy needs. Families can then spend money on other things and not be stressed out making the mortgage/rent payments. If we really care about our society’s well being, we’d work to lower the cost of housing (in terms of % of income spent).
I think that we should encourage density. People who want to live in SFR can still do so but they’ll pay more. That’s only fair because it costs a lot more to service SFRs in terms of trash, sewer, electrical, cable, phone, police, etc… SFR developers should be required to pay for the cost of extending services to the suburbs. (I live in an SFR in the suburb so it’s a not a question of McMansion envy)
May 25, 2007 at 3:07 PM #55066Ash Housewares
ParticipantPerry, your last post is a bit of a dichotomy. The first paragraph seems to imply that we need government intervention in the market (“If we really care about our society’s well being, we’d work to lower the cost of housing”). Sounds like socialism to me.
Your second paragraph advocates a market system where the beneficiary pays- capitalism.
Just an observation.
May 25, 2007 at 3:07 PM #55081ParticipantPerry, your last post is a bit of a dichotomy. The first paragraph seems to imply that we need government intervention in the market (“If we really care about our society’s well being, we’d work to lower the cost of housing”). Sounds like socialism to me.
Your second paragraph advocates a market system where the beneficiary pays- capitalism.
Just an observation.
May 25, 2007 at 3:31 PM #55068ParticipantYes, the keyword is cheap.
The keyword is affordable.
Cheap is cheap. Unfortunately, when we allow low cost housing, what is typically built is tenament style ghettos.
Other than higher land acquisition costs, there is little reason why the cost of construction is $200+/sf than units were gouging the price of $500/sf.
May 25, 2007 at 3:31 PM #55083ParticipantYes, the keyword is cheap.
The keyword is affordable.
Cheap is cheap. Unfortunately, when we allow low cost housing, what is typically built is tenament style ghettos.
Other than higher land acquisition costs, there is little reason why the cost of construction is $200+/sf than units were gouging the price of $500/sf.
May 25, 2007 at 3:42 PM #55070ParticipantAsh, we now have plenty of government intervention in the form of zoning laws that dictates what developers can or cannot build. If we could resist nimbyism, view protections and such, then we could have affordable housing for everyone.
May 25, 2007 at 3:42 PM #55085ParticipantAsh, we now have plenty of government intervention in the form of zoning laws that dictates what developers can or cannot build. If we could resist nimbyism, view protections and such, then we could have affordable housing for everyone.
May 25, 2007 at 9:10 PM #55090latesummer2008
ParticipantThornberg is the only one that speaks the truth. He had to leave UCLA because of it. The guy is brilliant and tells it like it is.
LISTEN to anything he says….
May 25, 2007 at 9:10 PM #55106ParticipantThornberg is the only one that speaks the truth. He had to leave UCLA because of it. The guy is brilliant and tells it like it is.
LISTEN to anything he says….
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.