The Shame of Palo Alto: An Interview with Kate Downing on Affordable Housing

Post by lisper » Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 4:46 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #189

lisper wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Providing for more people is not the same as creating more total value, and markets do the latter, not the former. PA is the result of market forces, together with democratically elected government, working together to serve a particular segment of the market: rich people who want to live in a low-density area close to both undeveloped land and urban amenities. Yes, this leaves a lot of people on the outside looking…

Realistically, "not everyone" is going to live in Palo Alto, but in any actual market, density would be significantly increased. Some people might actually like that. Others wouldn't. Those people can always sell their houses at hugely, hugely profitable valuations and move to, say, Lakeview, Oregon if they want a small town. I'm not one of those internet libertarians that thinks 'free market' is the answer for any p…

Post by lisper » Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #192

lisper wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those people can always sell their houses at hugely, hugely profitable valuations and move to, say, Lakeview, Oregon if they want a small town. Sure, and the people who want higher density can move to Los Angeles or Seattle or even Oakland if they want to be in the Bay Area. There are plenty of places where development is not as restricted as PA. So I don't see your point. And I don't see how PA is not an "actual m…

In a 'free' market, people would be able to do as they see fit with their property. Clearly, there are some limits to this, but I don't think 'building more housing' should be one of them.

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 6:01 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #194

lisper wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are some limits to this OK, so you recognize that. But... > but I don't think 'building more housing' should be one of them Well, the good citizens of Palo Alto disagree with you. Why should your opinion override theirs?

Along with majority rule, you need to have minority rights, and I think that's being thrown out with regards to zoning in the US, and it is causing all kinds of problems.

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #196

dragonwriter wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Along with majority rule, you need to have minority rights, and I think that's being thrown out with regards to zoning in the US "Thrown out" implies that specific, identified, previously recognized minority rights have been abandoned. What I think is more likely in the case of zoning is that things that people would like to have recognized as "minority rights" but which have not been are, well, still not recognize…

I'm talking about the right to do things like add another floor to a house, or not have to have a 2 car driveway, or things like that that are very often part of zoning codes. Zoning turns 100 this year, so indeed, at one time those minority rights existed, and still do in other places: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/08/col...

Post by davidw » Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 10:17 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #198

davidw wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Along with majority rule, you need to have minority rights, and I think that's being thrown out with regards to zoning in the US, and it is causing all kinds of problems.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Which minority's rights are being thrown out? (Note, by the way, that you didn't actually answer my original question: why should your opinion about where the limits of zoning should be override the opinion of the residents of PA?)