Posted on 10/29/2014 9:31:04 AM PDT by Pan_Yan
...
But there's a second reason why San Francisco's problem is emblematic of a national story. Liberal cities seem to have the worst affordability crises, according to Trulia chief economist Jed Kolko.
In a recent article, Kolko divided the largest cities into 32 “red" metros where Romney got more votes than Obama in 2012 (e.g. Houston), 40 “light-blue” markets where Obama won by fewer than 20 points (e.g. Austin), and 28 “dark-blue” metros where Obama won by more than 20 points (e.g. LA, SF, NYC). Although all three housing groups faced similar declines in the recession and similar bounce-backs in the recovery, affordability remains a bigger problem in the bluest cities.
...
"Even after adjusting for differences of income, liberal markets tend to have higher income inequality and worse affordability,” Kolko said.
Kolko's theory isn't an outlier. There is a deep literature trying liberal residents to illiberal housing policies that create affordability crunches for the middle class. In 2010, UCLA economist Matthew Kahn published a study of California cities, which found that liberal metros issued fewer new housing permits. The correlation held over time: As California cities became more liberal, he said, they built fewer homes.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
My home town, Newton Mass, is 90+% left wing liberal. Average sale price is 919,000. Case closed.
Your Money or Your Life
Your Money will be taken if you live in San Fran Sicko
Your life willbe taken if you live in Detroitistan
Both places are Libs strongholds...
The rich democrats always price property sky high to keep dangerous minorities out of their neighborhoods. The poor dangerous minority democrats then cluster into poor areas safely away from the rich democrat overlords. If I could be a billionaire for a day, I would construct the world largest public housing projects right smack dab in the middle of places like Martha’s Vineyard
Liberals pursue green environmental policies that limit construction and urban growth.
Liberals love rent control.
Liberals are clueless when it comes to the law of
supply and demand.
Recent feature story in the Sunday Pittsburgh Trib:
“Urban Planners: Designing Cities for Hipsters That
You Don’t Want!”
The people designing your cities don’t care what you want. They’re planning for hipsters.
In the midst of the Rust Belt, you have several cities that are booming with large state universities and/or large clinical hospitals: Iowa City, Ann Arbor, Madison, and Bloomington.
All three cities are overwhelmingly liberal, and are always ranked high on best places to live. But they receive BILLIONS more in state taxpayer money every year compared to other cities that are rotting former industrial giants (Fort Wayne, Flint, Racine, Waterloo).
Turn off the money flow to these liberal bastions, and they will rot faster than a dead carp in July.
Yep
And the sad part of all of this is the proles have no clue and keep electing these oxygen stealing scum bunnies.
Goobermint can control prices. They don’t undertand they can not control costs.
Liberals are not clueless so much as they oppose the Law of Supply and Demand. That law, if strictly observed, wold mender their affluence much less secure as they would have to actually produce goods and services to maintain it.
I refuse to live in cities, regardless of where my commute is. The hive lifestyle engenders a hive mentality. No thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.