The Home Builders lay out a straightforward argument that the forced sale provision for Build-to-Rent homes would lead to 40,000 less constructed homes per year.
Cass should have the decency to explain why he thinks they’re wrong, or why this is an acceptable trade off.
Great thread on the base ROAD package
After all the discourse over the suburban renter ban that cuts ~half the base package's point estimate construction forecast, you're probably wondering what the good news is
Read this thread for the optimistic view!
@ryangrim What's going on is that Schatz actually knows the details of policy, and knows that Warren's proposal would make this an anti-housing bill that would hurt people, and is trying to give her an out to back away from her extremely stupid idea.
During the presidential campaign Trump repeatedly, perhaps daily, said that Chuck Schumer wasn’t pro-Israel enough. People heard this and believed that Kamala Harris was the Zionist candidate.
Given how dependent California's budget is on the tech industry and the boom years when large capital gains are realized, the tech industry has a inexcusably small amount of political heft in this state. Maybe this is changing for the better.
“While populism is gaining steam with Democrats, exempting huge numbers of people from taxes struck many on the left as “slopulism,” stirring voter passions without advancing the party’s vision of government” - @daveweigel
https://t.co/0LZ21DWBSC
"Some financial firms want to invest in build-to-rent single family homes" is true. And such investment is good as it expands the supply of rental homes.
But the impacts are small/marginal, since Wall Street-owned SFHs comprise a tiny fraction of the housing market
This is why the “YIMBY is funded by big tech” line doesn’t bother me. Tech companies are major Bay Area employers. They want lower housing costs because lowering the cost of recruiting and keeping employees is in their economic self interest.