Letter to the Editor, Seattle Weekly
Mar. 31st, 2005 07:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertangoKnute Berger, in "Village Idiots" (March 30 - April 5, 2005), doesn't seem to have a good handle on supply and demand. The reason houses cost so much in Seattle (or San Francisco, or Manhattan, or Portland) is because there's a helluva lot of demand for those houses.
There are only two ways to do much about the situation -- put more houses in to increase supply (which means higher density), or pay a subsidy (thereby artifically reducing the net price). Of the two, increased density is the more sustainable in the long run, both for fewer resources consumed by building greener houses, and because sooner or later any subsidy will come to an end (jacking the price right back up to where it would've been in the first place).
He's absolutely right about education. As Warren and Tyagi show in their book, The Two-Income Trap, people are literally bankrupting themselves to pay for mortages in places they feel have better education. But that only shows how a slight increase in taxes for education not only gets you better schools, but also a more stable financial environment for families, far outweighing the costs of those bankruptcies.
Sincerely,
Hal O'Brien
There are only two ways to do much about the situation -- put more houses in to increase supply (which means higher density), or pay a subsidy (thereby artifically reducing the net price). Of the two, increased density is the more sustainable in the long run, both for fewer resources consumed by building greener houses, and because sooner or later any subsidy will come to an end (jacking the price right back up to where it would've been in the first place).
He's absolutely right about education. As Warren and Tyagi show in their book, The Two-Income Trap, people are literally bankrupting themselves to pay for mortages in places they feel have better education. But that only shows how a slight increase in taxes for education not only gets you better schools, but also a more stable financial environment for families, far outweighing the costs of those bankruptcies.
Sincerely,
Hal O'Brien
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-31 03:54 pm (UTC)Options
Date: 2005-03-31 04:01 pm (UTC)But, if you're right, that only means density/increased supply really is the only way to go. {shrug} Hokay, fine. :)
Re: Options
Date: 2005-03-31 04:08 pm (UTC)Re: Options
Date: 2005-03-31 04:49 pm (UTC)But the main reason is, I'm not sure you'd get, "the same buyer." Let's go back to your original premise:
"...you still have the same number of people chasing the same number of houses..."
Right. Which means the supply is exactly the same. Now, what I'm reading you saying is that a subsidy drives up demand. But if the number of buyers is still the same, I'm not sure how that can be.
In other words, what you're saying makes sense if you look at this solely from the sellers' point of view. But if it was me, as a buyer, and the seller did this to me, I'd walk. Perhaps I'm just not as able to see the point of view of other buyers as I might.
Re: Options
Date: 2005-03-31 05:03 pm (UTC)Re: Options
Date: 2005-03-31 04:09 pm (UTC)Re: Options
Date: 2005-03-31 04:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-31 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-31 08:58 pm (UTC)MKK
no subject
Date: 2005-04-01 01:40 am (UTC)