In housing debates, I feel like the second fundamental welfare theorem gets a Rodney Dangerfield level of respect. This was a great NYT article about evictions near Springfield, MA https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/us/evictions-pandemic.html?referringSource=articleShare 1/

If you can’t afford housing in Springfield, the problem you have is low income, not high market housing costs. If government care about the evictees, write them checks, not brand new apartments that they would not choose to rent if given just enough cash to rent them. 2/

Why wouldn’t they choose brand new apartments if given just enough cash? Because they have other unmet expenditure needs. Also, government evidently won’t spend enough to fix the low income problem. So there is a choice: 3/

Give a lot of people a little cash, or a small number of people new homes that they wouldn’t choose if given equivalent cash and everyone else nothing. 4/

Now move the discussion from Springfield to Vancouver. Why do we ask developers for in kind contributions of subsidized units to be lotteries instead of cash to be spread equitably? 5/

Tangentially, I ran on Point Grey Road this morning. Lots of beautiful new homes getting built, no affordability requirement.