🚀 go-pugleaf

craig sweet <crazy@bigsky.net> wrote:

>George Conklin wrote:

>> In article <74ms6v$6ba$1@uvaix7e1.comp.UVic.CA>,
>>  <rvanrood@valdes.UVic.CA> wrote:
>> >In article <74mmhn$e6c$1@nina.pagesz.net>,
>> >George Conklin <henryj@nina.pagesz.net> wrote:

>> >>  Vancouver is also an excessively expensive city.  One
>> >>friend, who moved there in the 1970s, found that by 1982 his
>> >>house had risen in value from $30,000 to $320,000, totally
>> >>out of range for a teacher. You know what?  The planners
>> >>thought those price runups were great 

The city comptroller must have thought it was great. As real estate
prices rise, more tax revenue flows in, without changing the tax rate.

>>    Rubbish.  Vancouver was no nicer in the 10 years before
>> planners ran the prices out the roof by limiting housing
>> than it was ten years later.  When you decide to limit new
>> housing you just run the price out the roof of the
>> remaining.  Urban crowding is not quality life anyway.  It
>> is expensive, and if you are going to try to compete with
>> Hong Kong and Hong Kong prices, you price out the middle
>> class, the goal of planners who live the rich and pretend to
>> love the poor, and detest the middle class and single-family
>> housing.

If they detest the poor and single-family housing, they must be
encouraging luxury apartments.

--Buster <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/geography>