
When Millennials Battle Boomers Over Housing - jseliger
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/millennials-home-buying-generation-priced-out/574840/
======
masonic

      urban Boomer homeowners... have consistently—and incredibly successfully—blocked construction of affordable housing
    

This very premise is false.

" _Affordable_ " housing is, by definition, housing built and _sold at a loss
of income_ on the part of the developer.

"Boomers", individually or collectively, lack any authority to stop such
developments -- only governmental bodies have such authority.

The actual story is that such "housing advocates" try to _extort the
dedication of part /most of any development to be artificially low priced_. If
they would just let development happen at market rates, the _overall supply_
would be increased, thereby lowering prices _across the board_ for that
dwelling type in that area.

Anyway, it goes on:

    
    
      "(The Ghost Ship) warehouse that had been informally turned into an artist collective and residence"
    

Uh, no. It wasn't just illegally subdivided and ridiculously dangerous, _it
was illegal for anybody to live there at all_.

    
    
      If a city only builds upscale units, there’s nothing for working people.
    

That assumes that every "upscale unit" is sold only to a new arrival. In fact,
"movin' on up" creates a chain reaction of others moving up into each's prior
residence.

    
    
      Urban Boomer homeowners are part of this trend, and they’ve made enormous profits 
    

Not until they _sell_ , they haven't... and once they sell and move, they
aren't around to wield mythic powers against development, are they?

    
    
      Neighborhood councils and homeowners associations
    

... have no actual power to stop development, regardless of its targeted
demographic.

"I point out the HALA program because many states bar inclusionary zoning. In
San Francisco we require a percentage of units in a new building to be rented
or sold at below market rate..."

So, _zoning_ is only "inclusionary" if BMR units are demanded of a developer?
Forcing BMR losses upon developers and "zoning" are completely different
things.

    
    
      using publicly owned land for affordable housing
    

As opposed to San Jose, which just gave away a bunch of prime parcels to
Google for _well below market_ for _office space_ in the Montgomery/Autumn
corridor, including _no housing whatsoever_ , BMR or otherwise.

