# I am a NIMBY, and there is no housing crisis in CA **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2019, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483 "2019-02-13T18:17:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/21 "2019-02-13T20:59:10Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Altho that problem you pose does occur in San Francisco, where all housing of any type is ridiculously high, remember SF is very small and has BART and Cal Train so affordable housing is but a short commute away. I live at the end of the BART, and our houses are only affordable if you use Cupertino as a baseline. I haven’t checked prices in Dublin recently, but I doubt they’d be considered affordable for most of the country. I don’t know if people are still doing 3 - 4 hour commutes to get to affordable housing like they did in 2007, but I bet they are. 580 is crowded enough. It is a hard problem to solve, but it is a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/22 "2019-02-13T21:10:07Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > If SF finds itself with no burger flippers and school teachers, then shame on them. Then they will change their zoning laws. Until then, let them wallow in their money. The zoning laws aren’t the only problem. Right before my commute took me past lots of high density condos in San Jose and Santa Clara. They screwed up traffic real good, but didn’t seem to make a dent in housing prices. We’re fairly built out, and while I’m all for building high density houses near transportation centers, it’s not going to solve the problem for the middle class, not to mention lower income people. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/23 "2019-02-13T21:16:38Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Mandating higher wages for people isn’t going to solve the problem if there isn’t more housing for them. All it will do is further increase the cost of existing housing. The high-wage workers are going to have to continue living in their cars, which is what’s happening in the San Francisco area. > > And you can’t say the solution is for people to move further and further out. Longer and longer commute times represent a further cost to people’s lives, in terms of money, mental and physical health, and quality of life. You shouldn’t have to be rich to afford in time and money to do something with your life besides commute to work and back. It represents a cost on their children as well. And we all know the children today become the tax-paying citizens of tomorrow. You have to worry about the societal ramifications of having a large cohort of parents who are too tired at the end of the day to help with homework or make healthy dinners or read bedtime stories. Do kids somehow magically cope with these things? Or do we end up with a generation of illterate layabouts who only confirm the worst fears of living next to the rabble and the hoi-polloi? Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/24 "2019-02-13T21:20:13Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > I hear all these arguments, and I agree with some of them. However, people are complaining it is too expensive to live there. Then live somewhere else! > > Unemployment is a an all-time low. There are tons of jobs in Dallas, Minneapolis, Knoxville, or dozens of other more affordable cities. You can live like a king there compared to SF. So say “_Bleep_ you, San Fransico!” and leave to better pastures. I’ve been to SF and it ain’t _that_ great. > > No one is entitled to live in Beverly Hills or Midtown Manhattan. No one in entitled to live in SF. > > If SF finds itself with no burger flippers and school teachers, then shame on them. Then they will change their zoning laws. Until then, let them wallow in their money. “They should just move” is very truthy, but not nearly as simple as you make it sound. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/25 "2019-02-13T21:32:17Z")
For this and other reasons, we need to eliminate “local” counties, cities, and towns and do this planning on a metropolitan-wide basis, to reflect the true needs and costs to the economy and community as a whole. The very fact that these tiny jurisdictions exist in the first place is to enable affluent whites, in particular, to benefit from the economy while escaping the consequences of their own lifestyles. It makes no sense from the perspective of the larger economy or society to put so much power in the hands of so few. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/26 "2019-02-13T21:46:37Z")
If it keeps going in the direction that the OP wants, then I suppose one outcome would be that people like the OP would have to provide housing on their own property for their groundskeepers, governesses, etc. Hmm … kinda reminds me of feudalism. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/27 "2019-02-13T21:53:36Z")
People like the OP don’t seem to realize there’s such a thing as prosperity sprawl. It’s not just the middle and lower classes who move a town or six away and commute: as the self-styled patricians are forced to find housing a bit farther away, those housing prices become ridiculous as well. But hey, if you want to keep middle- and lower-class people out of your town, OP, let’s also keep the wealthy out ofmiddle-class towns. Tearing down attractive little houses so they can build bloated McMansions that take up entire lots and block the view isn’t doing the rest of us any favors. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/28 "2019-02-13T22:01:49Z")
I wonder if NIMBYists tend to be the same people who expect their young adult children to live on your own after a certain age. It is pretty hard to live on your own when you are just starting out if there is no stock of affordable housing. So I wonder how many NIMBYists are fans of multigenerational households. And how many NIMBYists are fine with their grandchildren attending subpar public schools since the neighborhooda with “par” schools are too expensive for their adult children. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/29 "2019-02-13T22:05:25Z")
Another way to look at this is that the OP’s property value is substantially made up of a public subsidy, in the form of zoning restrictions. But someone is paying for this subsidy, and that’s everyone who is affected by skyrocketing housing costs, and bearing the brunt of the resulting negative externalities. ---
**Author:** ![HelenGawn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@HelenGawn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HelenGawn)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/30 "2019-02-13T22:17:35Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Do you have enough money to pay for your security? Your own EMTs and medical staff? > > Do you have enough money to hire your own sanitation workers? Road repair guys? > > Surely at some point the costs conferred by your NIMBYism outweigh the benefits of your precious property value. If you are having to educate your kids at a private school because there aren’t any good public teachers willing to put up with a three-hour commute (let us ignore for the moment that private school teachers wouldn’t want to put up with that either), then that means your “nice” neighborhood isn’t all nice. If you gotta pay for your own security force to keep criminals away from your property, again, that is not a “nice” neighborhood. Most people are willing to put up with high property taxes only if they get high quality public services in exchange. Otherwise, they are just paying for a flashy status symbol. That is plain stupid. > > Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk A great alternative is building much smaller, working-week rentals on the edge of cities. [It’s worked so well in other countries.](https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-safrica-violence-hostels/an-apartheid-legacy-south-africas-hostels-breed-anger-violence-idUKKBN0O50KP20150520) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/31 "2019-02-13T22:22:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The minimum wage in San Francisco is $15/hr-How far does one have to travel to get affordable housing? > The median _family_ salary in San Francisco is $120,470-same question. Zero. People do, they share, they rent rooms of houses, they rent out rooms. But yeah, you can find 'reasonable" price places within 30 minutes. ---
**Author:** ![HelenGawn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@HelenGawn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HelenGawn)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/32 "2019-02-13T22:22:41Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’d probably be a poor quality teacher so I wouldn’t home school. **But I can pay for private school if the situation called for it.** Of course service workers are necessary - but if those employers cannot meet the demand, then wages will rise to eventually create equilibrium. People will have to pay more for those services - at grocery store and through higher taxes. So be it. > > To be clear, I think there is a balance to be had. There is room for state intervention. But what is happening now is going further than had previously been the case so I feel like pushback is called for. Unless you’re prepared to rent a room to your kids’ teachers, [They’ll be riding the luxury bus to Gilroy.](https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-are-private-school-teachers-paid-less-than-public-school-teachers/280829/) Heck, maybe just turn the buses into classrooms. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/33 "2019-02-13T22:28:47Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Higher density housing is one thing, and yes, there needs to be more. But there’s plenty of it in SF, just too expensive. > > The issue is \*subsidized \*low income housing. Which is usually not really occupied by low income people. The one we checked had a parent (on Soc Sec) rent the place but actually occupied by the Tech kid, earning quite a bit. Subsidized housing is a facet of the overall scenario, but it’s not one that I’m focused on. I’m talking about zoning, density, and state mandates of cities primarily. > [@Acsenray](#): > > The OP is setting up an untenable situation, one that could have a negative impact on the national economy. The housing stock in the Bay Area has to increase, which means there needs to be higher density housing throughout the area. Why do you think the housing stock has to increase? Someone mentioned [Belvedere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belvedere,_California)up thread.[Here is the one for Belvedere.](http://www.cityofbelvedere.org/DocumentCenter/View/2316/Adopted-2015-2023-Housing-Element--05-11-2015?bidId=) The RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) is listed in table 30, which mandates that Belvedere needs to provide for 16 additional housing units across multiple income levels by 2023. Why is it appropriate that the state mandate that Belvedere increase its housing stock? It’s not like any low income people are going to be able to live in a place where the median home price is in excess of $2M. > [@Ravenman](#): > > The thinking of the OP – and it does have a sound logic to it, as far as it goes – is actually quite dangerous. Think about how many societies fell into strife based on the conflicts between landowners and tenants. Sure, most of those involved agricultural matters, but it isn’t like wealth is a prophylaxis from ending up with one’s head on a pike. > > Many years ago, I heard a description of Silicon Valley: an economic success and societal failure. Well, enjoy your money while people’s lives crumble all around you. Sounds comfy! This is a good point, but only to the extent that the entirety of law enforcement breaks down. Barring that, this problem is addressed with more prisons, maybe in Bakersfield. 🙂 > [@Dinsdale](#): > > I can sympathize w/ some aspects of the OP, but I am curious whether he/she perceives any “concerns” with the current income/housing situation, and if so, how those might best be addressed. I don’t know exactly where the OP lives - how large or small it is. Here in the Chicago area, you can have a really exclusive neighborhood/suburb, but people could readily commute from less affluent areas. Does that exist in SF? What length commute are relatively low paid workers expected to make? Could that be addressed by raising their wages? Providing subsidized transportation? I don’t know what else. Commute times in the bay area can get quite high. At every job I’ve been at, I’ve known people who commute greater than 2 hours each way. Public transit is somewhat passable, although I hate it for many other reasons. But that’s only if you work in SF proper because SF is treated like a hub. I don’t really agree or have concerns with the current income/housing situation. Ultimately if people can’t afford to live where they want, they should get used to disappointment and move somewhere they can afford. > [@Acsenray](#): > > Mandating higher wages for people isn’t going to solve the problem if there isn’t more housing for them. All it will do is further increase the cost of existing housing. The high-wage workers are going to have to continue living in their cars, which is what’s happening in the San Francisco area. > > And you can’t say the solution is for people to move further and further out. Longer and longer commute times represent a further cost to people’s lives, in terms of money, mental and physical health, and quality of life. You shouldn’t have to be rich to afford in time and money to do something with your life besides commute to work and back. High wage earners are not living in their cars, at least not with any significant magnitude, and not unless it’s by choice. For those people that commute a long distance - they made a choice. They don’t have to work and live in a place that is virtually unaffordable except for the affluent. It sucks to commute a long way. I used to do it - about a 4.5 hour commute round trip. I saved money. I worked my ass off. But that was my choice and for me the tradeoff was worth it. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > The minimum wage in San Francisco is $15/hr-How far does one have to travel to get affordable housing? > The median _family_ salary in San Francisco is $120,470-same question. There is “inclusionary housing” in every city. But the cost is variable based on local metrics. It’s usually keyed off of a percent of median income. > [@nelliebly](#): > > People like the OP don’t seem to realize there’s such a thing as prosperity sprawl. It’s not just the middle and lower classes who move a town or six away and commute: as the self-styled patricians are forced to find housing a bit farther away, those housing prices become ridiculous as well. Of course, the farther away from the economic center you go, the lower the price, typically. Eventually those will increase in price as demand rises, and around those areas another economic center may arise. Eventually those on the lower rung of income will be pushed out of those areas as well. Rinse repeat. The market will work, and those that can’t afford to live in a given place will have to move. That’s the whole point, no one has right to live in a certain place at a certain price. > [@Acsenray](#): > > For this and other reasons, we need to eliminate “local” counties, cities, and towns and do this planning on a metropolitan-wide basis, to reflect the true needs and costs to the economy and community as a whole. The very fact that these tiny jurisdictions exist in the first place is to enable affluent whites, in particular, to benefit from the economy while escaping the consequences of their own lifestyles. It makes no sense from the perspective of the larger economy or society to put so much power in the hands of so few. And this is the approach that Newsome and others are taking in CA. Consolidating power at the state level and reducing local control and governance. This is precisely what I’m opposed to. [Look at the recent example of Huntington Beach.](https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-hb-housing-lawsuit-20190125-story.html) The state is suing the city for not updating their zoning plan fast enough: > [@](#): > > But Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates contended “the city has been, in fact, complying with all applicable state housing and zoning laws.” > > Huntington “has been and will continue to work with the California Department of Housing and Community Development regarding meeting the city’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment,” Gates said in a statement Friday. “Any delay experienced by the city in its ability to amend its zoning and/or make additional progress has been caused by the city fighting lawsuits and court appeals filed by plaintiffs such as the Kennedy Commission.” > > He pointed to recent court victories in an ongoing lawsuit in which the Kennedy Commission, an affordable-housing advocacy group, alleged that an amendment to the city’s development plan for the Beach Boulevard-Edinger Avenue corridor violated state housing law. > > Gates called the state’s lawsuit “timed poorly” because it interrupts months of discussions between the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Kennedy Commission toward reaching a resolution of outstanding disputes. > > … > > Though cities and counties do not build homes, local restrictions on development, such as high fees or a lack of land zoned for residential use, can prevent construction that might otherwise occur. Higher-income coastal communities, including Huntington Beach, often maintain some of the tightest development rules in the state, even as housing costs have soared in the past decade. > > The median home value in the beach city of 200,000 people tops $834,000, according to real estate website Zillow. More than half of Huntington Beach’s tenants are rent-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing, according to U.S. Census data. > > Huntington Beach put itself in a shortfall toward its state-mandated target for low-income housing units when the council in 2015 amended the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, which was adopted in 2010 to help revitalize Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue by streamlining the building approval process. > > The amendments reduced the cap on new residential development from 4,500 units to 2,100 and imposed stricter height and setback requirements after many residents complained about the high rate at which high-density residential projects were popping up. Why does this smaller, affluent coastal city need to have the same state wide housing mandates imposed the same way is done for SF, LA, San Jose, or Oakland? ---
**Author:** ![HelenGawn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@HelenGawn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HelenGawn)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/34 "2019-02-13T22:28:57Z")
Here’s one of many cites I found refuting the OP’s claim [of reduced property values.](https://ced.sog.unc.edu/does-affordable-housing-negatively-impact-nearby-property-values/) the worst that could happen is a modest reduction in the skyrocketing rate of increased value. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/35 "2019-02-13T22:30:50Z")
“Just move” might work for single and young people, but there are tons of people who just can’t move without abandoning elderly/disabled family or their children. NIMBYism does a lot of harm to these folks, just to benefit relatively well-off people. Does this concern you at all, **Bone**? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/36 "2019-02-13T22:42:08Z")
It’s rich to see someone hanging an argument on “the free market will work” when there’s not a free market. In an actual free market, when demand rises, low density “suburban”-style housing would be torn down and replace with high density housing, allowing demand, supply, and cost to re-equilibriate. The OP is actively blocking the free market and then calling it a free market solution. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/37 "2019-02-13T22:52:24Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > It’s rich to see someone hanging an argument on “the free market will work” when there’s not a free market. In an actual free market, when demand rises, low density “suburban”-style housing would be torn down and replace with high density housing, allowing demand, supply, and cost to re-equilibriate. The OP is actively blocking the free market and then calling it a free market solution. Exactly. Local government regulation is still regulation, and what the OP is arguing for is extremely tight regulation of the housing market by his local government. **Bone** , you’re arguing for the opposite of a free market housing solution. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/38 "2019-02-13T22:53:27Z")
Here’s a sample of NYC affordable housing in my neighborhood that has pretty much pissed off people on both sides of the debate. > **[Seven Units Available in Astoria 'Affordable' Housing Lottery, Cheapest Rent...](https://astoriapost.com/seven-units-available-in-astoria-affordable-housing-lottery-cheapest-rent-2k-per-month)** > > Jan. 25, 2019 By Christian Murray The latest “affordable” housing lottery has opened in Astoria and seven apartments in a 23-unit building are now on The link describes 7 affordable apartments, 3 1-bedroom and 4 2-bedroom. A quote from the link “The one bedroom units are priced at $2000 a month and are available for household sizes of up to two people. The minimum income to qualify begins at $68,572.00 and goes up to $100,200.00”. Then it describes the higher requirements for the two bedroom units. There are programs where developers can get tax credits or abatements in exchange for putting a certain number of “affordable” below market rent units in their buildings. These apartments are awarded via highly competitive lotteries. Lotteries that may not be completely honest - I haven’t read any news stories regarding fraud in the lotteries but I once met someone that got into an affordable housing unit because her son knew someone and pulled some strings. The issues with the units in the linked article are: 1: The market value rent for these units is probably only about 20-25% more than the subsidized rents. And rents in these new luxury style buildings are considerably higher than the rents in the older prewar buildings. So the subsidized affordable rent is actually in line with rents in the area. Yet the developer is getting huge concessions, and they will probably cheap out on the finishes in the affordable units, bringing them even closer in line to market rents. 1. These affordable rents are taxpayer subsidized ( either directly or indirectly ). Yet they are not available to people making less than 68K a year. People with 6 figure incomes are eligible for these subsidized apartments. And there aren’t a lot of them ( the apartments, not people who qualify for them). I’m a pretty solid liberal and I don’t have much of a problem with my tax dollars helping folks that are less fortunate than me. I don’t much like them used to help folks that are more fortunate than me because they won a lottery. 2. I’m suspicious. I’m concerned that these subsidized rentals are all going to be going to the adult children of people that know someone and can pull some strings. This program seems really corruption prone. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/39 "2019-02-13T23:04:09Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > … > 3. I’m suspicious. I’m concerned that these subsidized rentals are all going to be going to the adult children of people that know someone and can pull some strings. This program seems really corruption prone. Yep. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483/40 "2019-02-13T23:20:04Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > It’s rich to see someone hanging an argument on “the free market will work” when there’s not a free market. In an actual free market, when demand rises, low density “suburban”-style housing would be torn down and replace with high density housing, allowing demand, supply, and cost to re-equilibriate. The OP is actively blocking the free market and then calling it a free market solution. I don’t believe I’ve asserted that the free market will work. I fully acknowledge that restrictive zoning rules are not an example of the free market at work. It is a market that is heavily impacted and influenced by local and state regulation. Nothing is going to change that aspect, so to the extent it exists, I’d want to use it to push policies I find favorable. This is a ‘don’t hate the player, hate the game’ scenario. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > “Just move” might work for single and young people, but there are tons of people who just can’t move without abandoning elderly/disabled family or their children. NIMBYism does a lot of harm to these folks, just to benefit relatively well-off people. Does this concern you at all, **Bone**? It’s unfortunate for them, certainly. It’s a concern also. But not enough to make me change my evaluation or desired outcome. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-nimby-and-there-is-no-housing-crisis-in-ca/829483.md?page=3)