91–100 of 126 posts
I said it before here, but the situation in oregon is fucked up more than normal. The state constitution limits the rate at which property taxes can be raised to 4% a year, provided no new construction occurs. Increasing housing supply is actually penalized here.
Didn't the governor of Oregon tell people from other parts of the country not to move to Oregon in the 70s? Everyone wants their own private paradise without having to share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right that new construction favors luxury housing, but I don't agree that this inevitably leads to displacement of other residents. Most of the effects of "trickle-down housing" are seen in the same market as older buildings must lower rental prices as the condition/amenities age and compare poorly to the newer/nicer buildings. Individuals must move as new construction replaces an existing building, but there…
>Individuals must move as new construction replaces an existing building, but there will be other units available to move to in a market that is actually allowing new construction I don't think the emphasized part is a given. There is likely no new construction at the bottom of the market for these displaced people to move into. For example, let's say a SRO hotel is torn down and a luxury condo goes up in its place.…
In every other instance, new luxury housing in a constrained market allows wealth individuals living in mid-range housing to move up. That frees mid-range housing for middle-class individuals to move out of their low-end units. Those low-end units are now free for the individuals displaced by the luxury construction.
This is the cycle that the article is highlighting in action. The key here is not the number of people demanding low-income housing - that level stays fixed, whether they lived in the old demo'd building or not. The determining factor is available units of supply, which is stable once the middle- and upper-income people vacate their lower-end units. This is an observable phenomenon, as highlighted by the original article and all of the crosslinks therein.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Renters vote but tend to be under-represented on City Councils and such because they are a) younger, b) have less money, c) move more often than people with homes. Renters don't vote as regularly as homeowners.
Sincere question: is this a bug or a feature?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s in this very article. What other outcome could happen?
That new luxury housing makes a city more attractive and induces demand from outside. Adding new roads can make driving more attractive and worsen congestion. Not saying that’s what happens, but a simple supply/demand analysis (ceteris paribus) may not suffice.
Induced demand is definitely a thing for roads, but that demand is from fixed supply of people. In the roads case, it is counter-intuitive specifically because it causes the same number of people to drive more, on average.
That dynamic simply doesn't hold for luxury goods in general or luxury housing in particular. There are effectively no replicable instances of more luxury good = more buyers unless price falls or supply was previously constrained.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You wish to extend control of property beyond the borders of what they own outright?
But that happens all the time. Neighborhood zoning restrictions, restrictive covenants, homeowner association rules, and so on. So Danihan's position is, de facto , what the situation already is in many instances. So: You wish to not allow any control of property by anyone other than the property owner? Are you sure you really want that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that happens all the time. Neighborhood zoning restrictions, restrictive covenants, homeowner association rules, and so on. So Danihan's position is, de facto , what the situation already is in many instances. So: You wish to not allow any control of property by anyone other than the property owner? Are you sure you really want that?
You just listed the principal agents in the NIMBY crusade, which I suppose it's clear I am in pretty strong opposition to in most cases. Tyranny of the majority is a serious problem in race, class, social, and wealth spectra, and these groups represent that form of tyranny in action. They're great right up until you do something that the majority disagrees with. Not recognizing the red flags this throws up makes me t…
I mean, sure, it changes the value of my property if my neighbor doesn't keep his bushes neatly trimmed. But there's stuff that he can do that's a lot more serious than that. I don't regard opposing a 7-11 on my neighbor's property as "tyranny of the majority" - or at least I regard letting my neighbor freely choose to do those things as "tyranny of the minority", which I regard as worse.
Now, obviously you can take this to extremes, and you can get upper-middle-class white-bread cisnormative-with-2.3-kids neighbors who insist that you have to have exactly 2.3 kids or you can't live in the neighborhood. Also, your garage has to be painted the right shade of blue. That's definitely tyranny of the majority, and I agree that it can be oppressive.
And I guess opposing a 7-11 next door, or an oil refinery, or a landfill is exactly NIMBY-ism. But I moved into a neighborhood where part of the restrictive covenants said that I couldn't open a convenience store on my lot - because it was going to conflict with the one that they were planning for a block or two away, on the corner of the subdivision. That was known in advance to everyone who bought into (or built in) the subdivision, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with an oil refinery next door, either, if I know it's coming when I buy the property. (I would probably not buy, but if I did, I would know what I was signing up for.)
And I didn't have a problem with the neighbor two doors down starting a hair salon in her house, even though I didn't know that was coming when I bought into the neighborhood. There was a mechanism where anyone who had a problem with it had a chance to be heard, though. (I don't know if they could have blocked it, or if someone else got to judge the seriousness of the objection.)
TL;DR: I'm not opposed to people being able to do things. I'm opposed to people being able to do things that significantly harm the value of their neighbor's property in ways that the neighbors didn't know was coming at the time they bought the property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just listed the principal agents in the NIMBY crusade, which I suppose it's clear I am in pretty strong opposition to in most cases. Tyranny of the majority is a serious problem in race, class, social, and wealth spectra, and these groups represent that form of tyranny in action. They're great right up until you do something that the majority disagrees with. Not recognizing the red flags this throws up makes me t…
OK, but I don't have to be part of the minority to understand why I don't want my neighbor to be able to tear his house down and replace it with a 7-11, or an oil refinery, or a landfill. Do any of those things throw up red flags for you? I mean, sure, it changes the value of my property if my neighbor doesn't keep his bushes neatly trimmed. But there's stuff that he can do that's a lot more serious than that. I don'…
You're right that there is a difference between starting up an oil refinery and building an apartment complex. The problem with many of these organizations you mentioned is that they weaponize their power (intended for use against oil refineries) against people, lifestyles, and forms of housing they don't like. In Seattle (as elsewhere) it is justified in order to, for example, preserve the availability of free public street parking in front of and near their home. This perceived "right" to public, shared property has extended to mobilizing against dense housing like "apodments" for fear it would "take up street parking" in my town. In my opinion, if you want parking, you should build it on your own plot and not expect the city to limit development to provide it for you free of charge.
You seem to have a pretty reasonable expectation of entitlement - no 7-11, but fine with small in-home business - and I wish there were more like you out there. In practice, these "NIMBYs" move to an area circa 1970 and expect it to never change again. This is untenable in downtown SF, Seattle, or any other major metropolitan area, as I think you realize. The natural evolution of these HOAs, neighborhood associations, and like seems inevitably to be towards oppression - anyone more Laissez-faire wouldn't bother joining one in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best way to end a speculative bubble is to crash the price by increasing supply.
...potentially degrading your urban environment in the process. My point is that, if a particular housing market is experiencing a shortage of supply due to a speculative boom, but has sufficient housing to actually house people, then you have two options: tackle the supply side by building more houses, or tackle the demand side by addressing the cause of the speculation (e.g. tax incentives could be encouraging this…
This is because newer, taller buildings are almost always going to be higher quality than the old shit that was already there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just listed the principal agents in the NIMBY crusade, which I suppose it's clear I am in pretty strong opposition to in most cases. Tyranny of the majority is a serious problem in race, class, social, and wealth spectra, and these groups represent that form of tyranny in action. They're great right up until you do something that the majority disagrees with. Not recognizing the red flags this throws up makes me t…
OK, but I don't have to be part of the minority to understand why I don't want my neighbor to be able to tear his house down and replace it with a 7-11, or an oil refinery, or a landfill. Do any of those things throw up red flags for you? I mean, sure, it changes the value of my property if my neighbor doesn't keep his bushes neatly trimmed. But there's stuff that he can do that's a lot more serious than that. I don'…
If someone moves into a suburban neighborhood where everyone is part of the same HOA, I can absolutely see that they'd want to be very NIMBY about maintaining the way of life that they bought into and controlling change.
But someone who bought in SF shouldn't have nearly that expectation of control. Cities are places that are about concentrating humans in close proximity to enable enterprises and efficiency that isn't possible with lower population densities. You have to assume that when there's increased demand to live in cities, population density will go up.