>>1965852You should feel sorry for yourself posting this drivel
>Developers tear down old housing stock, replace with financed A-Class mixed useIf it's all been tore down during those low rate years, guess that explains why the median age of housing stock in the country is 40 years, and a huge amount in my sunbelt state with relatively new housing stock was built between 1975-1995. Hang on, where's all that housing that according to you should have been built across the country from 2009-2020?
>National economy sags, inevitably. Big firms leave with their employeesSomehow Coca Cola, CNN, IHG, Cox, Equifax, Home Depot, etc are all still here despite several major economic sags.
>It's happening RIGHT NOW in Dallas and San FranciscoI can't speak to Dallas, but San Fran is its own special brand of hell. Post-Covid remote work plus a severe lack of new housing construction (seriously, San Fran's housing stock has a median build year of 1944) means nobody wants or needs to live in San Francisco to work for big tech.
>Simultaneously, city starts struggling to cover basic services because sales and property tax revenues are lowerIf you have more homes in city limits, you have more people buying things (generating sales tax) and paying property tax. If you build denser than single family-only neighborhoods, you also generate more property tax revenue per acre of land while also lowering your infrastructure costs per capita.
>Rapid growth and "market rate housing development" YIMBYism KILLS citiesI guess that's why city populations boomed after WWII when we *checks notes* rapidly built an absolute fuckton of housing
>Developers, responding to SLOW and SUSTAINABLE population growth.Is that what you call razing several hundred square miles of land outside the city to put in mcmansion 'burbs? Because as of 2000, a full 30% of Atlanta's housing stock had been built in the previous decade (1990-2000).
