Wikipedia:Peer review/California housing shortage/archive1

California housing shortage

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in the topic (though I didn't write this article), and I want to know what's missing from it before I shoot for a GA. Could it use charts or graphs? A different arrangement of the relevant information?

Thanks, grendel|khan 07:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The article has major problems with bias, emphasizing one side of a political divide instead of telling the reader about all the views found in the literature. It jumps to conclusions and makes sweeping statements not supported by the mainstream sources. It takes the stance of anti-regulation commentators and presents their opinions in Wikipedia's voice, as if that stance is the absolute truth. So if the article is nominated for Good Article it ought to be quick-failed. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to agree with Binksternet. It has also been argued that demand for housing in California is just too high to be met, even with deregulation. The picture is more complex than is presented here. Catrìona (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

[Added the following AFTER the discussion was closed.....I don't know the procedures for closing these discussions, maybe I should have added this info earlier?]

The ACADEMIC literature about this topic recommends reduction of regulation in the housing markets to allow more private sector development. See especially President Obama's Housing Development Toolkit that is discussed in the article here: California_housing_shortage#Whitehouse_"Housing_Development_Toolkit"_recommendations

"Over the past three decades, local barriers to housing development have intensified, particularly in the high-growth metropolitan areas increasingly fueling the national economy. The accumulation of such barriers–including zoning, other land use regulations, and lengthy development approval processes–has reduced the ability of many housing markets to respond to growing demand. The growing severity of undersupplied housing markets is jeopardizing housing affordability for working families, increasing income inequality by reducing less-skilled workers’ access to high-wage labor markets, and stifling GDP growth by driving labor migration away from the most productive regions."

Secondly, a statement like "...demand for housing in California is just too high to be met, even with deregulation." shows a complete lack of understanding of supply and demand. I challenge anyone making these claims to cite their sources for such mis-information.

The California Legislative Analyst's Office 2015 report "California's High Housing Costs - Causes and Consequences" gives their analysis of the result of more housing construction on pages 20 - 23.

"If California had added 210,000 new housing units each year over the past three decades (as opposed to 120,000), [enough to keep California’s housing prices no more than 80% higher than the median for the U.S. as a whole--the price differential which existed in 1980] population would be much greater than it is today. We estimate that around 7 million additional people would be living in California. In some areas, particularly the Bay Area, population increases would be dramatic. For example, San Francisco’s population would be more than twice as large (1.7 million people versus around 800,000). In other areas of the state, where significant housing development occurred due to spillover demand in the state’s coastal metros, population would likely be about what it is today or potentially smaller."

---Avatar317 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

You're just not getting it. The topic should be brought to the viewer as a summary of what exists in the literature, not as a prescription to fix the shortage. You have not represented the sources which defend California's open spaces, or the preservation of neighborhood stability and social health in California's urban places. It's a larger topic than purely economic arguments. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)