RLLD

The market will ebb and flow of course, and with it the building. There really needs to be more tradesmen out there to be sure.

OK, fair enough. I think you can poke alot of holes into an idea, and its the kind of scrutiny I would anticipate from liberals should this idea start to get traction. The tactic of asking question after question, pointedly to infer that this is somehow going to help affluent people etc....as if they should not be able to benefit from affordable housing in any way....which I surmise flawed thinking. So you have demonstrated my concern here today. The idea is questioned to denigrated it.

California overall is in the same boat

Not sure I understand what you are trying to convey

There is much....much more to this effort than that. And along the way government will get in the way, over and over, and it will disproportionately be Democrat-driven. I have been through this multiple times..... the government sucks on every possible level, full stop. They do three things 1) Make things more expensive 2) Make things take longer and 3) lower the quality Thats is....I have dealt with them for years, and with commercial and residential construction as well. Trust me, they are focking god-awful

I wish I could believe you. But in practice, it usually is.....

Contractors are not busy, in fact they are pulling back on building due to influences such as inflation (yes, the Bidenflation hurts this area too). There is not a dearth of builders nor are they overworked. Builders will naturally seek to focus on products that afford more margin, but need not be excluded, they will step into this work. I am getting a sense from the posting in here that there is some concern that people might make money on this endeavor, or perhaps too much or something. That is not our worry here. Our worry here is the government....and how they will make this potential opportunity too expensive, or less profitable, to pursue..... that is our main concern.

It will depend, in part, on who proposes it. If Trump were to champion it, then obviously it would be opposed as a matter of practice. Past that, you will have plenty of folks who will find reasons to oppose it. We have to accept this, because it has to be part of the plan; to deal with it. I think it can work. I hope this happens. I have noted this concept working with regard to former malls....I love it when they are repurposed into community centers etc. But changing these buildings could be a steep hill to climb.

Well, that is how you set them up, from the start...... that is how you zone for these buildings. Maybe I do not understand that question, since this is more or less the way its done. As with many residences, there are ways to ensure that the people acquiring their lease are using it as their primary domicile, this is also rather common.

Not sure. I am not aware of wealthy people striving to access low-income housing. Perhaps its possible, but more often then not those folks seem to be striving for more expensive housing.

It is wrong to prevent people from accessing something, regardless of their wealth. If a wealthy person decided to live in a low cost abode then they should have the freedom to do so.

Time will tell, I am rather confident they will.

Not sure I follow what you are trying to say

I think it could happen, but then again obstacles could come from almost any area. The biggest problem presented by Democrats would be burdensome regulations, and then past that there would likely be claims of racism etc..... we know the drill.

Concur with your assessment, notably since it echoes what I have already stated. But I remain hopeful that the potential can eventually be exploited.

It is an idea I support. I think it meets the need. Demand is high, so reallocating this space to the demand meets the housing need as well as the need to moderate the market.....through market forces. I could see existing real estate entities on the residential side having an objection of course, and there will also perhaps be some from civic groups and government. Too many people abandon simple solutions with odd objection.

I do not think we have to manipulated people. Again, its about supply and demand primarily, so when you have demand, supply needs to increase for costs to lower Now, people want places to live, so we take space that is no longer needed for commercial activity, and rezone it to meet the need. There is an opportunity before us here, and if government can stay out of the way, this could work really well. Consider the ancillary benefit to foot traffic business as well

New York would be a slog, a Democrat-dominated environment means we cannot use common sense, and anything we propose will be vilified. The best/first step to help New York is to allow conservatives to be elected, not saying that liberals will tolerate any other ideas, but there could be some moderation and allowance for simple common sense. At the end of the day it is mostly driven by supply and demand, but also too taxes and regulation. Costs are always passed along, and the government needs to get out of the business of making things more expensive.

Not at all. I think there are a formidable set of bureaucratic hoops that would have to be jumped through, but it can be done.

I was hoping you might be inclined to disparage the idea.....but since Biden is on board..... shouldnt you be on board?

Right now zoning is going to be the most formidable issue. I think the best path forward would convert these facilities into a mixed use scenario. Multiple restaurants, office space can be retained, then a variety of residential(with a range of costs). There will be plenty of people who might fight it, for a variety of reasons. But a conversion that results in affordable housing will soften the residential market.

Strip malls? I dont think those still exist..... If you want, however, to have an adult discussion about something tangible that could work we can still do that. Or, you can continue being a child and using sarcasm as some weird shield

Agree completely. Look at the abuses leveraged to try to take Trump down. I would put nothing past this modern group of Democrats.....they are clearly dedicated to power....no matter what has to be sacrificed.

Its a great question. It appears as though the Democrat approach is in lock step with their standard approach to most problems, blame some "evil" participant Conversely, we can see the Republicans focusing on the marketplace, which is the correct place to look. When prices rise, its not corporations being evil, they are simply reacting to the market. The Republican plan includes touching on a range of market-centric elements. So rather than saying business is evil; its not. Instead the focus should be on what is happening in the market, and then to do as little as possible to pervert the market while creating avenues for expanded access. I am waiting for someone to realize that COVID really put us into this "remote" work area.....and there is plenty of commercial space that could be converted to residential, and that would provide an immediate relief to prices.

If progressives actually cares about the poor, the situation would not be getting worse in areas where they dominate the political arena. Caring about the poor is not unique to one side of the aisle, the policy prescriptions are different; and conservative ideas are better.....they just dont lie to the poor about what it will take to get them out of poverty.