Matt Mahan

So I think that the ultimate outcome has to be that we're building more housing, but that we're building it more affordably.

We have to pull the cost out of building because as long as the state of Colorado can build the exact same home at half the cost of what it is in the Bay Area, we're never going to be able to compete.

So I want to see more housing in absolute terms get built.

We need to start moving in a better direction.

We've gone from about 100,000 units a year to about 80,000 a year.

You go farther back, it was 150,000 a year.

I think we need to get well over 100,000.

I think the right way to think about it, though, is it's really a ratio with jobs.

For every two jobs an economy creates, you need at least one home.

Part of the reason the Bay Area, and particularly Silicon Valley, is so unaffordable for working people, and we're seeing displacement of working families, is that over the last 20 years, this incredible economy here, the engine of innovation for our country and really the world,

has created about eight jobs for every one new home we've built.

That is a completely unsustainable ratio.

So I'm a little hesitant to come out and say we're going to build 10 million homes.

I think it's a ratio thing.

It's a rate of change.

We need to be building more year over year.

But importantly, we need to pull back the fees, the long timelines, the overly complicated building codes.

Yeah, each of those get a metric because ultimately, the per square foot cost of building needs to go down.

Oh, it varies dramatically by product type and market.

I mean, it's a good question.