Ok, I thought I saw you at Fish Taco, but I was in a rush.

4,340,000 "vacant" units are classified as such because they are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Largely self-explanatory here, but should be noted that these units are often in places like the beach, the mountains, and other areas that aren't particularly close to population centers

The messaging I tried with my anti-congestion pricing family members: "OK, I get it. You need to drive. But there are people who would choose to drive less. When they don't driv, there is less competition for parking for you." Mixed success but better than other arguments.

Gotta love the energy!

Ended up being my favorite panel.

I heard something interesting in the YIMBY Case for Freeway Fighting: Traffic Evaporation. This is the opposite of induced demand. It's circled in big letters in my notebook. Wondering if any research behind it.

I wonder how effective it would be for the transit movement to lean more into the 1) efficiency of transit to move people, 2) parking reform, and 3) congestion pricing as the only proven ways to get cars off the road and actually relieve traffic. But headline always being: GET RID OF TRAFFIC

It's worth emphasizing here that this is not a problem with rent regulations as such. Any change in the housing market that resulted in slower rent growth - including Abundance-style deregulation - would be causing over leveraged landlords the exact same distress.