The final few paragraphs relate Californian cities' land use regulation to the current status of their respective real estate markets. Cities that did not permit or encourage [relatively] unchecked urban growth are not feeling the pain of empty homes and foreclosed properties. That makes sense.
I suppose one aspect of this piece really troubles me, though, and it is going to put the U.S. in quite a catch-22. Maybe this comment was made tongue-in-cheek, and I just missed that. The author, rightly so, suggests that the ever increasing U.S. population will, assuming the homes are affordable, eventually even out this empty home mess. But that solution comes with some complications. Can areas such as the San Joaquin Valley actually support the population required to fill those homes? When the residential real estate market recovers, won't more new homes be constructed, only perpetuating the problem? Is there something other than a more-home-for-less-money appeal that is going to attract buyers to exurban communities?
I don't have any answers to those questions. But I think they are evidence of how long we as a country might be dealing with the fallout of this Great Recession.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment