How does Quan “get the job thing”? Last time I checked, while she was chair of our Finance Committee, the city spent it’s rainy day money without her objection. We also funded a lot of NGO jobs programs, and then showed a massive spike in unemployment.

Show me the green jobs. Where are they? Show me the new high-paying industrial jobs for people without college degrees. That’s what Quan and others promised when the city decided to “preserve industrial land”. Where are those jobs?

“”People also really care about fair and equitable economic development, which in this city means affordable housing and making sure the people who live here have jobs.”

Revisit Tom’s article above to see how out of whack Oakland is on building less Medium Income Housing than Low Income Housing. My question for Jean: If she plans to keep this up, how does she plan to pay for the higher levels of Affordable Housing she wants? What about the deficit we’re already in?

Sure, Chicago & Madison are different from Oakland. In terms of housing stock, by and large they’re superior, yet prices are lower. Again, I’d welcome you to take a field trip of comparably priced homes in the different areas.

The difference? (along with IZ)? Neither city is “land constrained,” rather they’re “income constrained”–prices relate to incomes in non-land-constrained areas, in land-constrained areas, prices relate to rents.

With land constraints (many of which are self-imposed by the unwitting collaboration of “affordable housing” folks who do the pizza example and current homeowners–who don’t want supply driving down their property values), the incentive is clearly to put up housing with the absolute lowest quality materials. Why? Because they can get away with it. There’s a restricted supply of new housing, as opposed to Chicago, Minneapolis, or wherever, and so they know they’ll have a surfeit of buyers, one of whom will buy the house at their inflated price. Elsewhere, there is no surfeit of buyers and no restricted supply, so builders compete on QUALITY (and location). That’s why new construction here is crap.

The plain fact is, Chris, the dynamics of THIS market work to exclude the middle class. THIS market, with “affordable housing” set asides and everything else (NIMBYism, “landmarking”) work to bifurcate the market into poor folks’ housing and rich folks’ housing. Take a look at every other less-regulated housing market, and you’ll find 1) housing prices relating to income, not rents and 2) a broad spectrum market with all classes.

And in some respects, I do see my homeownership as a form of investment. When I rented I was truly wedded to the town, today I am in for the long haul. It was nights like last night which make me think we are headed in the right direction.

It also explains why you get such poor value for your money on newer, market-rate construction. It’s seriously terrible out here. I’d love for everybody to go on a field trip to anywhere else (Chicago, Madison WI, etc) and peruse new construction and the prices and compare the quality to here.

But, again, this is all in the abstract. We don’t have inclusionary zoning. The affordable units that come from new development typically come from fees and incentives, or are the result of tax credits and other funding sources that have strings attached (and that aren’t unique to Oakland).