Thanks for choosing to accept some risk here, and hosting Mr. Rubin. One point he makes parallels one I've been making literally for years - one that I've found that office-holders and candidates do not even want to hear, let alone address. This: It is really, really HARD to profitably BUILD new "affordable housing". But it is NOT hard to get developers to build housing, if you do not insist on it being "affordable" even when it is brand new. And the more that is built, the more affordable the older, existing housing becomes due to simple laws of supply and demand.
Therefore, if what we really want is to increase the total amount of housing, and have at least some of the NET increase be in the form of "affordable" units, we should be making fewer and fewer restrictions on development for any project that is providing new units WITHOUT removing any older ones. You want to build on a vacant lot? - Knock yourself out! You want to tear down an existing residential building? - NOW we've got restrictions and rules. Even then, though, the rules should reflect that the developer gets more flexibility if he is providing many MORE units than he is removing. Here, "in the middle", it's true that some actual thought is needed to come up with rules that would work optimally. And getting THAT right would be a noble goal for government. But this is a math problem that, "at the limit", has an easy and obvious solution - At the extreme that is represented by a project that provides new units while removing NO pre-existing ones, there is no earthly logical reason not to encourage development by relaxing restrictive rules.
Thanks for choosing to accept some risk here, and hosting Mr. Rubin. One point he makes parallels one I've been making literally for years - one that I've found that office-holders and candidates do not even want to hear, let alone address. This: It is really, really HARD to profitably BUILD new "affordable housing". But it is NOT hard to get developers to build housing, if you do not insist on it being "affordable" even when it is brand new. And the more that is built, the more affordable the older, existing housing becomes due to simple laws of supply and demand.
Therefore, if what we really want is to increase the total amount of housing, and have at least some of the NET increase be in the form of "affordable" units, we should be making fewer and fewer restrictions on development for any project that is providing new units WITHOUT removing any older ones. You want to build on a vacant lot? - Knock yourself out! You want to tear down an existing residential building? - NOW we've got restrictions and rules. Even then, though, the rules should reflect that the developer gets more flexibility if he is providing many MORE units than he is removing. Here, "in the middle", it's true that some actual thought is needed to come up with rules that would work optimally. And getting THAT right would be a noble goal for government. But this is a math problem that, "at the limit", has an easy and obvious solution - At the extreme that is represented by a project that provides new units while removing NO pre-existing ones, there is no earthly logical reason not to encourage development by relaxing restrictive rules.