Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 55 posts

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#31

Post by matt_wulfeck »

pessimizer wrote: post #28
jvm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree that development creates negative externalities which are legitimate complaints for neighbors. However, restrictions on development create a regressive tax in the form of high rents, which is, as the article describes, distributed broadly. What's needed is some sort of cost-benefit balance between the two. For example, I rent a 400 sq foot apartment in SF for $3k. The operating and capital cost of…

> I believe there is a goldilocks regime between the two extremes that we should strive for Is that where life becomes so unpleasant for the people who live there that the rents crash? I think you run into a traditional work migration problem here, because the young people who are moving to SF from suburbs and small towns across the nation generally have no intention of staying in SF and raising a family, so will be…

That's probably because people can't make a life there.

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#32

Post by matt_wulfeck »

ghaff wrote: post #14
PeterStuer wrote: post #10

The article seems to have it arse backwards. Yes, a lot of times this is a situation of "Distributed Costs and Concentrated Benefits", but with the benefits going to the property developer, and the costs to the impacted community. NIMBY is the catchy phrase constructed by marketing to discredit serious concerns people have when they are on the receiving end of someone's 'unacounted externality'. Technology has made i…

"NIMBY" has become like "PC" and other catchy terms of its ilk. On the one hand, they refer to principles/values that can often be legitimately criticized--at least up to a point. On the other hand, they've become these reflexively applied dismissive labels that imply nothing about the opposing side's arguments have any legitimacy whatsoever because NIMBY or because PC.

I never knew the term before moving to the Bay Area and seeing first hand the extreme resistance to high density housing because of concern X. Nobody cares about Warrantless wiretapping or grass roots political movement, but I've seen home owners rally the troops to stop a new 4-story "high rise"

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#33

Post by ghaff »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #32
ghaff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"NIMBY" has become like "PC" and other catchy terms of its ilk. On the one hand, they refer to principles/values that can often be legitimately criticized--at least up to a point. On the other hand, they've become these reflexively applied dismissive labels that imply nothing about the opposing side's arguments have any legitimacy whatsoever because NIMBY or because PC.

I never knew the term before moving to the Bay Area and seeing first hand the extreme resistance to high density housing because of concern X. Nobody cares about Warrantless wiretapping or grass roots political movement, but I've seen home owners rally the troops to stop a new 4-story "high rise"

It's hardly new. I've heard it applied to everything from large suburban-style developments in a rural town to a big casino in the next town over. It's basically come to mean someone whose desires and preferences for building in the local area are different from mine.

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#34

Post by Retric »

ghaff wrote: post #20
ancap wrote: post #19

The chief problem with the idea of NIMBY is that it is not really the concerned party's back yard. A more accurate term for the concept might be NIMNBY (Not In My Neighbors' Back Yard). NIMBY is an affront to the concept of property rights. But, some say, the concerned party has the legitimate concern that development on a neighboring property will negatively impact the value of their own property. While an understan…

Backyard in this context means something more akin to neighborhood/city/etc. as opposed to patch of green behoind hous Many property rights are limited in various ways--often by zoning in the case of land. And, typically, those limitations would be known at the time of purchase. Most would agree some level of zoning is reasonable; no incinerators or drilling for oil in residential neighborhoods for example. I actuall…

Zoning is a wide topic. Requiring buildings to be safe for the area is one thing. Forcing Residential and Commercial property to widely different areas is a common if terrible idea.

Central planning rarely works well. At best zoning could penalize some types of development to cover very real external costs, but not outlaw them.

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#35

Post by teacup50 »

mattnewton wrote: post #2

I'm skeptical that the bribes will be big enough to affect most land owners in San Francisco, but I don't have any numbers handy about the average income of the NIMBY's in that city. Just an intuition that they stand to lose far more in property value than it is practical to pay them. Side note - Does anyone know of a place to get that kind of information? Maybe it can be triangulated from census data + some other so…

The idea that upzoning decreases property values is a pernicious myth that keeps being used to bludgeon these people as greedy NIMBYs.

Upzoning in response to demand increases property values. It's very simple: you can charge more people high rent on the same plot.

This isn't guesswork, we have the numbers. Upzoning is financially beneficial to existing home owners.

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#36

Post by teacup50 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #12
Gibbon1 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good example of where orthodox economics breaks down; Money doesn't substitute for a quiet garden.

The problem is more that it could, but necessary amount of money isn't feasible to pay. Though on the other hand, that sort of problem is solved by building taller buildings, because then if you don't want to hear the traffic you can live on the 20th floor.

At which point you have a whole bunch of other problems, including not having a garden in the first place.

That said, money does solve that problem too -- if a home owner accepts that they're being pushed out by development, there's a pretty penny to be made in selling out to developers.

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#37

Post by jeffdavis »

PeterStuer wrote: post #10

The article seems to have it arse backwards. Yes, a lot of times this is a situation of "Distributed Costs and Concentrated Benefits", but with the benefits going to the property developer, and the costs to the impacted community. NIMBY is the catchy phrase constructed by marketing to discredit serious concerns people have when they are on the receiving end of someone's 'unacounted externality'. Technology has made i…

What exactly are these costs, and what's the most effective way to mitigate them or spread them more fairly?

Sparse housing has costs, too. Very big costs, like commute time and pollution.

The fact that a developer might get rich in the process of creating dense housing is not really a problem for me.

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#38

Post by jeffdavis »

dingaling wrote: post #7
someguydave wrote: post #5

I'm dubious that a few bribes will give pause to people who consider their homes in jeopardy.

I think the objective is to wash-out the casually-opposed with the bribe of reduced property taxes, leaving the smaller hard-core opposition to be tackled. However they don't offer any novel ideas to address the often-genuine concerns of that hard-core of 'NIMBYs'. Those are the ones opposed on principles or personal experience. For example in my neighbourhood the building of new developments had resulted in hugely i…

We are talking about city planning. Sitting in a private, quiet garden is not one of the use cases for a city.

If you live in a suburb, then it's a legitimate complaint. If the suburb has a lot more jobs than houses though, the commuters who want to live closer also have a legitimate concern that should be balanced against yours.

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#39

Post by davidw »

Retric wrote: post #34
ghaff wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Backyard in this context means something more akin to neighborhood/city/etc. as opposed to patch of green behoind hous Many property rights are limited in various ways--often by zoning in the case of land. And, typically, those limitations would be known at the time of purchase. Most would agree some level of zoning is reasonable; no incinerators or drilling for oil in residential neighborhoods for example. I actuall…

Zoning is a wide topic. Requiring buildings to be safe for the area is one thing. Forcing Residential and Commercial property to widely different areas is a common if terrible idea. Central planning rarely works well. At best zoning could penalize some types of development to cover very real external costs, but not outlaw them.

I think most of us have some fuzzy concepts about some things being 'a step too far', but I'll admit to not having a great idea where or how to draw the line.

It would suck to have an outdoor, late night heavy metal venue open up in an adjacent property, for instance.

OTOH, a lot of the limits on housing height and density and car requirements seem like bunk to me. And I'd rather live closer than farther to basic amenities like a grocery store, some restaurants, a small bar... stuff like that. I loved that about life in Italy.

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#40

Post by ancap »

davidw wrote: post #39
Retric wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zoning is a wide topic. Requiring buildings to be safe for the area is one thing. Forcing Residential and Commercial property to widely different areas is a common if terrible idea. Central planning rarely works well. At best zoning could penalize some types of development to cover very real external costs, but not outlaw them.

I think most of us have some fuzzy concepts about some things being 'a step too far', but I'll admit to not having a great idea where or how to draw the line. It would suck to have an outdoor, late night heavy metal venue open up in an adjacent property, for instance. OTOH, a lot of the limits on housing height and density and car requirements seem like bunk to me. And I'd rather live closer than farther to basic ame…

Your example is already a solved problem with the theory of homesteading. Whoever homesteaded the property first has the right to enjoy their property in the manner they originally possessed it. In this case, the outdoor, heavy metal music would be a trespass upon adjacent properties (unless they received an easement). Conversely in homesteading theory, if the outdoor, late night heavy metal venue was there first, you could not move in adjacently and expect to shut them down for excessive noise.
Post reply on HN