On the one hand I’m in favor of more housing. I live in the SF Bay Area where this is also a problem, and really insufficient housing is a problem for all of California, so I’m naturally supportive of efforts to address this problem. However, I’m not sure this project is a high priority for EAs.
This seems like something that’s not especially neglected (lots of people are thinking about ways to improve the housing situation in American cities) and also unlikely to have high impact in relative terms (viz. globally rich Americans are not suffering as much due to expensive, limited housing in desirable cities as the global poor, animals, or far future beings (in expectation)). Cf. ITN framework for why I’m thinking about these criteria.
I think it would be hard to convince me this is working on something neglected, but I’m pretty open to the idea that I might be wrong about impact, especially if better housing in American cities is somehow on a critical path to other, more obviously higher impact projects. I’d be interested if there are better arguments for why this is impactful enough to be prioritized over other, more obviously high impact causes.
While housing gets a lot of attention in California, land use and zoning reform is politically unpopular.
Land use and zoning is an extremely cost-effective way to impact economics, racial justice, and the environment. In California, the approach to housing is to invest in raising money for affordable housing, which doesn’t address the systemic root causes of the housing shortage. Meeting our housing needs just through subsidized affordable housing, in LA County alone, would cost more than 500 billion dollars. Additionally, a McKinsey Global Institute report estimates that the housing crisis is costing the California economy between 143 and 233 billion dollars per year. On the other hand, land use and zoning is basically free (other than the staff cost of implementing it) and has a major effect on affordability - https://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/removing_barriers_to_accessing_high_productivity_places
Abundant Housing focuses on opportunities to make a maximum impact with minimal resources. In 2019, the Coastal Plan we advocated for created housing targets for the region that would get us to national rates of rent-burden and overcrowding, as well as get our GHG emissions on track for state climate goals. That’s through advocacy in a single administrative process, which few people pay attention to.
On the one hand I’m in favor of more housing. I live in the SF Bay Area where this is also a problem, and really insufficient housing is a problem for all of California, so I’m naturally supportive of efforts to address this problem. However, I’m not sure this project is a high priority for EAs.
This seems like something that’s not especially neglected (lots of people are thinking about ways to improve the housing situation in American cities) and also unlikely to have high impact in relative terms (viz. globally rich Americans are not suffering as much due to expensive, limited housing in desirable cities as the global poor, animals, or far future beings (in expectation)). Cf. ITN framework for why I’m thinking about these criteria.
I think it would be hard to convince me this is working on something neglected, but I’m pretty open to the idea that I might be wrong about impact, especially if better housing in American cities is somehow on a critical path to other, more obviously higher impact projects. I’d be interested if there are better arguments for why this is impactful enough to be prioritized over other, more obviously high impact causes.
Hi Gordon, thank you so much for your comments.
While housing gets a lot of attention in California, land use and zoning reform is politically unpopular.
Land use and zoning is an extremely cost-effective way to impact economics, racial justice, and the environment. In California, the approach to housing is to invest in raising money for affordable housing, which doesn’t address the systemic root causes of the housing shortage. Meeting our housing needs just through subsidized affordable housing, in LA County alone, would cost more than 500 billion dollars. Additionally, a McKinsey Global Institute report estimates that the housing crisis is costing the California economy between 143 and 233 billion dollars per year. On the other hand, land use and zoning is basically free (other than the staff cost of implementing it) and has a major effect on affordability - https://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/removing_barriers_to_accessing_high_productivity_places
Abundant Housing focuses on opportunities to make a maximum impact with minimal resources. In 2019, the Coastal Plan we advocated for created housing targets for the region that would get us to national rates of rent-burden and overcrowding, as well as get our GHG emissions on track for state climate goals. That’s through advocacy in a single administrative process, which few people pay attention to.