A lot of focus on zoning and new construction limits when the housing crises comes up -- but what about foreign investment? I'd be curious to hear an argument over residency requirements. It's very appealing for a foreign investor to park their cash in real estate. The more that gets bought up and remains unoccupied, the tighter the market, and the more that prices continue to rise...
In DTLA alone, we have foreign investment (mostly Chinese and Taiwanese) to thank for the construction of nearly 2,000 new apartment units over the past 3 years (including units still under construction), with an additional 2,000 apartments and 1,000 condos planned over the next 5 years.
DTLA has a less than 3% vacancy rate for apartments, and for 11 months out of last year there were fewer than 5 condos for sale downtown, so occupancy is not a problem.
My point was that foreign investment can help solve the problem, which supplements the post that I was replying to.
Also, I'm not sure what the point of your link was. London's housing market has little in common with SF's; housing-wise London's market is most like Manhattan. Wealthy foreigners frequently acquire London flats without the intention to live in them beyond a few weeks or days each year and primarily use the real estate as a way to store their wealth. London allows, and even encourages, uber-expensive housing developments that displace impoverished communities precisely to attract this type of foreign wealth. In DTLA, foreign investment under the EB-5 Visa program has been used to increase the supply of housing and non-industrial commercial usage in a space that historically had limited amounts of both.
