Letters to the Editor: More market-rate homes aren’t the answer to our housing crisis
To the editor: It is a myth that building more expensive market-rate housing will result in lower housing prices. (“The California conundrum: Fewer people, more homes, but an acute housing shortage,” Sept. 18)
Supply-side economists insist that the rule of supply and demand works in the housing market, but housing prices keep going up no matter how many homes are built, even with a population decline. This is because housing is considered an investment, not a necessity.
Homelessness is a result of a dearth of affordable housing, as explained in detail in a UC San Francisco report from June. We have to provide housing at all income levels for sure, but we have to provide housing particularly for lower-income tenants.
Housing and homeownership are out of reach for a number of reasons, including:
Developers outbid first-time home buyers, pay cash for homes and flip them for exorbitant prices; corporate landlord investors are pushing the upper limits of rent, harassing tenants and filing evictions; the increase in short-term rentals removes long-term housing from the rental market; the loss of rent-stabilized housing is occurring more rapidly than ever; and many more reasons.
Jane Demian, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: The ill-advised and shortsighted decision by the L.A. City Council and then-Mayor Eric Garcetti to include single-family homes in Los Angeles’ eviction moratorium has only served to worsen L.A.’s housing crisis.
Many single-family homes are rented out by mom-and-pop landlords who, during the moratorium, were forced into foreclosure because they received no rent for months or even years.
And when the small landlords gave up, who swooped in and bought many of the houses? Large corporations with deep pockets that jacked up rents and made it harder to qualify for a lease.
Jocelyn Weisdorf, Santa Barbara
..
To the editor: Thank you for the excellent article on the persistent housing shortage amid a population decline. After reading this piece, I think I understand why demand (and therefore prices) for homes is rising here despite lower growth and an increase in the number of units built in recent years.
I am curious, however, about why it makes sense to build more housing faster when our state faces challenges such as a dramatic (and likely continuing) decline in water supplies, stubborn air pollution and more.
Wouldn’t it make sense to conserve our environmental resources by not rushing to build more housing?
Michael Hertel, Claremont
