This guy is not simply opposed to relying on the "private market" (which is never applied to existing homeowners who want to cash out, they get to rely on the private market), he's opposed to letting developers buy lots and build what they want.
Furthermore, "build public housing" relies on someone paying- it's easy to demand that "the ri…
This guy is not simply opposed to relying on the "private market" (which is never applied to existing homeowners who want to cash out, they get to rely on the private market), he's opposed to letting developers buy lots and build what they want.
Furthermore, "build public housing" relies on someone paying- it's easy to demand that "the rich" pay to subsidize everyone else but what's rarely discussed is that in California longtime homeowners/landlords and their inheritors enjoy miniscule property taxes while new market-rate buildings built by "greedy developers" pay far higher taxes- i.e. they're the ones who are actually paying for all the services of these cities. If a city funds its own public housing, they're the ones largely paying for it anyway while longtime homeowners and landlords get away scot-free
This guy is not simply opposed to relying on the "private market" (which is never applied to existing homeowners who want to cash out, they get to rely on the private market), he's opposed to letting developers buy lots and build what they want.
Furthermore, "build public housing" relies on someone paying- it's easy to demand that "the rich" pay to subsidize everyone else but what's rarely discussed is that in California longtime homeowners/landlords and their inheritors enjoy miniscule property taxes while new market-rate buildings built by "greedy developers" pay far higher taxes- i.e. they're the ones who are actually paying for all the services of these cities. If a city funds its own public housing, they're the ones largely paying for it anyway while longtime homeowners and landlords get away scot-free