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

The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

nber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 105 posts

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#31

Post by zanny »

gnarcoregrizz wrote: post #24
sampo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could definitely foresee more homeowners blocking development of new routes/stations. Say, you own a piece of land with a house near public transit. Since the local township can no longer forbid building an apartment building on your land, you can probably sell your land to a developer for $$$$, so you make much more money than selling just a single house. And because you didn't want to live near public transit,…

Good point. I didn't consider the fact that land zoned for higher density would fetch more money. From that perspective, if your goal is to increase the monetary value of your investment, it seems like a win

Everyone wins except for one class of people when you actually allow building density to respond to demand. The only group of people who don't want that to happen are those who own houses in urban sprawl that would lose value if the artificial limits on density were lifted that allowed people to actually live in the city affordably like a lot of them want to do.

More density does not mean more crime or more "deplorables" unless you actively enable people get into that position. It does not tarnish the environment worse than endless seas of sprawl housing and resultant insane amounts spent on transit. Literally the only reason to not enable growth is to profit from its absence.

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#32

Post by deathanatos »

krausejj wrote: post #2

If you care about places like Silicon Valley or New York, or if you care about social justice across (and within) generations, it's time to research and understand why housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable in the most dynamic areas of the world. It's not due to lack of land. In California, we have a chance to fix things. SB-827 is a new bill that prevents local governments from banning density near public tra…

First, thanks for taking the time to put that together; it's always reassuring to see someone take the time for democracy.

Quick question: why does "Tell me how they vote" require my email address? Couldn't that information just appear when the area is clicked on, or am I misinterpreting that feature?

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#33

Post by nerfhammer »

gnarcoregrizz wrote: post #24
sampo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could definitely foresee more homeowners blocking development of new routes/stations. Say, you own a piece of land with a house near public transit. Since the local township can no longer forbid building an apartment building on your land, you can probably sell your land to a developer for $$$$, so you make much more money than selling just a single house. And because you didn't want to live near public transit,…

Good point. I didn't consider the fact that land zoned for higher density would fetch more money. From that perspective, if your goal is to increase the monetary value of your investment, it seems like a win

Only if your land is directly built upon. For everyone else it cuts the housing shortage if more housing units are on the market and reduces prices.

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#34

Post by Retric »

nolliebs180 wrote: post #22
ng12 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> inherent problem of rapid-transit noise What inherent problem? Rapid transit is certainly quieter than vehicle traffic. Noise pollution comes from sirens and heavy trucking, not public transportation.

When they re-route the rapid transit bus 1 block so it ends up going down my street during street repairs, my kid and my wife and myself get regularly woken up starting at 4:45am. Then the bus keeps going till midnight. Yippee what fun!

If you can notice people at a bus stop outside your house then you need better sound insulation. If you want to keep your windows open at night and have that be quite then move the the middle of nowhere.

I say this as someone that lived near an airport, even guests did not notice unless the windows where open.

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#35

Post by afpx »

gnarcoregrizz wrote: post #8
davidw wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's interesting is that you can make a very libertarian argument for a lot of this stuff too: http://marketurbanism.com/ although that probably doesn't play quite as well in much California. Still though, it's one issue where we all ought to be able to find some common ground and fix things.

Yeah. If nimbys don't want stuff built, imo they should buy the land themselves. I don't know what happened to property rights in CA.

Under that logic, if individual property rights are all that matter, you might as well throw out 90% of the San Francisco City code while you’re at it. Like, if your neighbor decides to jackhammer at 2 AM, well, it’s her property.

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#36

Post by mikeash »

snomad wrote: post #15
krausejj wrote: post #2

If you care about places like Silicon Valley or New York, or if you care about social justice across (and within) generations, it's time to research and understand why housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable in the most dynamic areas of the world. It's not due to lack of land. In California, we have a chance to fix things. SB-827 is a new bill that prevents local governments from banning density near public tra…

Every time I see this posted, I ask about noise. Dense housing near rapid-transit, particularly rail, has led to lots of people getting exposed to massive volumes of noise, even at night. This is the type of long-term negative that get people to move out to the suburbs (e.g. self-defeating the policy) or call for more construction such as sound walls. You can see Reno for a perfect example of this. Everyone moved out…

What's so bad about building sound walls?

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#37

Post by ng12 »

Retric wrote: post #34
nolliebs180 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they re-route the rapid transit bus 1 block so it ends up going down my street during street repairs, my kid and my wife and myself get regularly woken up starting at 4:45am. Then the bus keeps going till midnight. Yippee what fun!

If you can notice people at a bus stop outside your house then you need better sound insulation. If you want to keep your windows open at night and have that be quite then move the the middle of nowhere. I say this as someone that lived near an airport, even guests did not notice unless the windows where open.

Definitely. If it really bothers you, you can invest in double-paned windows and a good ventilation system. I used to live right under the San Diego flight path [1] and slept beautifully every night.

1. Not my video, but my neighborhood: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_M8PCO3BvE

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#38

Post by netheril96 »

gnarcoregrizz wrote: post #6
krausejj wrote: post #2

If you care about places like Silicon Valley or New York, or if you care about social justice across (and within) generations, it's time to research and understand why housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable in the most dynamic areas of the world. It's not due to lack of land. In California, we have a chance to fix things. SB-827 is a new bill that prevents local governments from banning density near public tra…

Since that's a marketing page for SB827, can someone explain to me how it doesn't ultimately create an incentive against public transit? All it would take to get around the zoning override would be to remove transit... I assume removing a bus stop (or even an entire route) is trivial. I could definitely foresee more homeowners blocking development of new routes/stations. With those considerations, it's possible we co…

In China, during the past decade, the property prices always rise even from just a hint of a new subway station. So blocking development of new routes/stations is just dampening the housing price, the last thing most homeowners want.

Of course, in the United States people are more comfortable with their own cars, and less reliant on public transport. So the effect remains to be seen.

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#39

Post by dionidium »

davidw wrote: post #9
gnarcoregrizz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. If nimbys don't want stuff built, imo they should buy the land themselves. I don't know what happened to property rights in CA.

Somewhere, there are probably some reasonable positions like "it'd be great if they didn't build a fireworks factory right next to my house", but we've gone so far beyond those in the US.

It's important to see that it's not a mere case of taking an existing principle and extending it too far; it's an entirely new principle.

What is NIMBYism? NIMBYism is opposition to necessary structures (that we all want) being built in specific places (e.g. near me). NIMBYism is saying that, while you understand that we need a water treatment plant -- you agree that we should build one -- you want to locate it on the other side of town (i.e. not in my backyard).

That's not what this is.

This is the desire to limit building entirely. It's the desire to prevent certain areas from growing, getting bigger. It's an opposition to density. It's a reactionary, conservative, nostalgic preference for the past. It's the belief that San Francisco should look like it did on the day you bought your house for the rest of all time. And it's an attempt to lock in enormous housing gains.

These are not the same thing. One is not "taking the other too far." It's a totally different thing.

Re: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)

#40

Post by alistairSH »

sampo wrote: post #19
gnarcoregrizz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since that's a marketing page for SB827, can someone explain to me how it doesn't ultimately create an incentive against public transit? All it would take to get around the zoning override would be to remove transit... I assume removing a bus stop (or even an entire route) is trivial. I could definitely foresee more homeowners blocking development of new routes/stations. With those considerations, it's possible we co…

> I could definitely foresee more homeowners blocking development of new routes/stations. Say, you own a piece of land with a house near public transit. Since the local township can no longer forbid building an apartment building on your land, you can probably sell your land to a developer for $$$$, so you make much more money than selling just a single house. And because you didn't want to live near public transit,…

Many people don’t value money more than their current house. They bought a nice house in a nice area and don’t want to move. Depending on area and financial situation, they also might not like their increased real estate tax assessments. It beehives them to partake in NIMBYism.
Post reply on HN