The one and only fix is more houses. That's it. Any other solution is just picking winners and losers different ways. But no matter which way you pick the same number of people win and the same number lose.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The heart of the problem in many parts of the country is that we fund our schools with property taxes.
Hence, a cycle of better schools and increased demand in concentrated areas, which causes the supply-demand imbalance and price increases. Compounding this is the fact that people in such areas actively block "higher density" housing, which naturally means fewer houses per acre.
Building more houses would help to a limited extent, but the shortage would still exist and resistance is stout.
Hence, the shortage of housing is just a symptom of how we fund education, which is the real problem.
>Inequality is not the problem
Inequality absolutely enters here because if wealth/income were more evenly distributed, then funding for schools would be more evenly distributed, thus alleviating concentrated housing demand in small areas with better schools and driving up prices.
If Concord schools had to take any number of first generation impoverished immigrants with poor English language skills, their test scores would implode. That doesn't happen, because working class immigrants don't buy the $800K homes in Concord.
And, what's the history? Were these schools neglected for years, then the state recently started pouring in money?
I mean, maybe there are some exceptions (perhaps partially gentrified cities where some tax base is moving back into cities at inflated prices?), but these would generally be outliers. Since wealthier people have fled most major cities for the burbs, the tax base and educational investments have generally followed them. You see this over and over again in communities throughout the country.
For example:
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why-americas-schools...
Cambridge (expensive city) $27,569 per pupil
Concord (expensive suburb) $17,517 per pupil
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ppx.aspx
Rankings
Cambridge Ringe and Latin was 214 out of 340
Concord Carlisle High was 27 out of 340
https://www.schooldigger.com/go/MA/schoolrank.aspx?level=3
Not cherry-picked data.
A lot of the difference is that cities, even expensive ones, are cities. A lot more diverse student body. A lot more students with problems at home. More disruption, etc. You can spend more money but the average student in the city school almost certainly has less parental involvement and less of a home environment that's conducive to learning than in the tony suburb.
The linked article (and decades of debate) notwithstanding, it's also hard to really correlate spending per pupil with educational outcomes past a certain point--especially as measured on standardized tests. Poorer cities do spend less. Two Lawrence high schools have the worst test results in Massachusetts. But its spending, $14,475 per pupil, is still only a bit less than Concord.
Definitely does in my city. Teacher pay's also substantially higher in the inner city schools. Most teachers still don't want to work there because they're stuck in a seemingly-inescapable poverty-and-culture-driven "bad homes -> bad students -> burnt-out and bitter faculty" rut, which makes them a discouraging, abusive, and dangerous hell for faculty and students alike.
Source: my wife and probably half my circle of friends are teachers.
[EDIT] in fact, some of the better suburban schools pay worse than the so-so suburban schools, let alone the high-paying inner city ones, because they can. Good teachers will still work there because the environment is nicer and more rewarding (that is, the students are way easier to teach, and the community tends to be supportive)
Despite having significant growth opportunity San Fran is already twice as dense as Seattle. Therefore Seattle has room for explosive housing growth. It would need more changes than just housing of course. But that's to be expected and totally doable.
Cities are huge economic multipliers. We don't need more cities yet. The ones we have are perfectly great! We need to more efficiently use what we already have.
This housing crisis isn't affecting just "top tier" cities. It's not just New York and San Fran. It's Seattle. It's Denver, Austin, and Portland. It's even Nashville!
Every city, top to bottom, needs to be doing more. And they need to start now as the longer they wait the more expensive the infrastructure adjustments become.
So long as you also build all the transportation, schooling, utility, and other infrastructure needed to support it.
Additional housing will result in a larger tax base which will automatically cover additional schooling needs.
I am hopeful for autonomous app hailed buses, but there's definitely a big chance it doesn't all work out that way, and even then there is clearly still a physical limit on how much existing road infrastructure can handle.
Wat? That is literally the opposite of reality.
The problem is cities are TOO POPULAR. Cities so successful that only the rich can afford to live in them! Increased property values, more property tax revenue, higher resident earnings and spendings. Cities aren't being decimated. Cities are so economically successful that poor people are being forced out so more rich people can move in!
The article, titled "The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore" is about people earning $50,000 to $125,000 who can't afford housing in cities. It's not about rural or rust belt communities with no jobs. Housing is plenty cheap in those areas. They just lack the jobs to go with it. A very real but very different problem.
It's easy to say and hard to do, but concerns like a good neighborhood or decent commute when looking for living arrangements in the cities is definitely not as common in Europe as it is in the US.
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/most-expensive-cities
You will find that European cities are very expensive to buy in and equally bad to rent in. Paris, Geneva, London, Helsinki, Stockholm, etc... all suffer from the exact same issues we're now seeing in American cities.
You could argue that the make-up of those cities are superior, as their suburbs are much more compact and urban connected with much better public transportation. This coupled with a culture that is much more ok with living in small spaces helps the middle class immensely.
In terms of a priced out middle class, however, the United States is really just catching up to the rest of the world.
Or of course you go to rust belt equivalent communities. Northern Spain. Southern Italy. Very cheap, beautiful even, housing for no money whatsoever. And not a chance in hell of finding a job there.
Our modern economy wants to centralize in cities, and not doing so is leaving free lunch on the table. Also keep in mind that more people in cities = cheaper suburbs for those who prefer it.
Increased centralization in cities is a bit of a problem. But cities are such an economic multiplier that it's difficult not to. That's a tougher nut to crack.