Pretty sure that looks (at worst) like “Rich people buy them all, and the locals have the same housing stock but much larger property base paid for by someone else.”
Sure, but the point of YIMBY is to solve the housing problem. That’s why people are spending their time and effort on it. So saying “at worst it won’t solve the problem” doesn’t seem encouraging. How should we spend our time and effort to actually solve the problem?
To be clear, I disagree with your unstated assumption that anything happening in London can be used to draw conclusions about the impact of YIMBY anything. If London were building an order of magnitude more homes per year, with the same dynamic, then sure, after a decade I’ll admit the point. But barring that, a world where you have a steady large influx of public funds to spend on actual residents, at no cost to those residents, is a good thing.
Pretty sure that looks (at worst) like “Rich people buy them all, and the locals have the same housing stock but much larger property base paid for by someone else.”
Sure, but the point of YIMBY is to solve the housing problem. That’s why people are spending their time and effort on it. So saying “at worst it won’t solve the problem” doesn’t seem encouraging. How should we spend our time and effort to actually solve the problem?
To be clear, I disagree with your unstated assumption that anything happening in London can be used to draw conclusions about the impact of YIMBY anything. If London were building an order of magnitude more homes per year, with the same dynamic, then sure, after a decade I’ll admit the point. But barring that, a world where you have a steady large influx of public funds to spend on actual residents, at no cost to those residents, is a good thing.