Yimby housing bills are wildly unpopular in the state (CA), a new poll shows
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: Yimby housing bills are wildly unpopular in the state (CA), a new poll shows
#2> Only 12 percent of respondents said California needs more market-rate housing, and 61 percent said the state needs more affordable housing and housing for homeless people.
I don't think most people understand that if market-rate housing isn't built en masse, and there's just 'affordable housing' allowed, the result will be mostly insanely expensive housing for the vast majority and a small token effort at affordable housing. End result? Millions of people paying ~50% of their income in rent.
Re: Yimby housing bills are wildly unpopular in the state (CA), a new poll shows
#3of course, most people feel like the level of density they have now is roughly the correct level density, it just needs to "be cheaper". Nevermind trillions in infrastructure spending on the assumption of low density suburban lifestyle.
I'll fight for YIMBY policy til the bitter end, but unless there's a cultural shift back towards the idea of stronger property freedoms wrt real estate, I don't see us making strides against housing costs. A lot of the modern zoning code was built to protect us from urban woes that literally do not exist anymore in this country - preventing things like noisy polluting factories next to apartment buildings in the middle of a city. We exported the factories to China and kept the zoning code as a cudgel to prevent dense housing.
Re: Yimby housing bills are wildly unpopular in the state (CA), a new poll shows
#4> Only 12 percent of respondents said California needs more market-rate housing, and 61 percent said the state needs more affordable housing and housing for homeless people. I don't think most people understand that if market-rate housing isn't built en masse, and there's just 'affordable housing' allowed, the result will be mostly insanely expensive housing for the vast majority and a small token effort at affordabl…
I worry that they understand too well the law of supply and demand, and prefer a small amount of designated affordable housing if it lets them salve their conscience over keeping the overall supply down, so that their own home values can continue to skyrocket.
But I don't know for sure. Someone should research this... but they would need to be very skeptical and probing, not just taking people's statements at face value.
Re: Yimby housing bills are wildly unpopular in the state (CA), a new poll shows
#5For society to function properly and for human beings to be free, there are some things that must be treated as so fundamental that they aren't subject to a vote. We protect the right to speech, for example, not because everything everybody says is popular. We protect it because it isn't!
Housing is like this.
Basically nobody wants a bunch of new housing in their neighborhood. But society can't function if people aren't allowed to build housing. Furthermore, the rights of property holders are fundamentally abridged when they're prohibited by their neighbors from making full use of their land. The right to build housing on your own private property, therefore, can't be subject to a vote. (And, frankly, this right is outlined in the U.S. Constitution, but it's been eroded by comically bad SCOTUS decisions like Euclid v. Ambler.)
I'm a YIMBY, not because I want a bunch of new housing my neighborhood. I don't! I'm a YIMBY because I don't think my opinion about the new housing in my neighborhood is relevant, the same way I don't think I should be able to muzzle people who say things I don't like.
My position is deeply unpopular, but it's correct. And that's the whole point. That's ironically why property rights need constitutional protection. If you let people vote away their neighbor's property rights, they'll do it every time.
Re: Yimby housing bills are wildly unpopular in the state (CA), a new poll shows
#6of course, most people feel like the level of density they have now is roughly the correct level density, it just needs to "be cheaper". Nevermind trillions in infrastructure spending on the assumption of low density suburban lifestyle. I'll fight for YIMBY policy til the bitter end, but unless there's a cultural shift back towards the idea of stronger property freedoms wrt real estate, I don't see us making strides…
Having lived in Chicago, having seen SF's downtown, let me tell you, urban woes are alive and well...
Re: Yimby housing bills are wildly unpopular in the state (CA), a new poll shows
#7of course, most people feel like the level of density they have now is roughly the correct level density, it just needs to "be cheaper". Nevermind trillions in infrastructure spending on the assumption of low density suburban lifestyle. I'll fight for YIMBY policy til the bitter end, but unless there's a cultural shift back towards the idea of stronger property freedoms wrt real estate, I don't see us making strides…
>urban woes
The "urban woes" that suburban zoning laws were passed to prevent were minorities, not factories. The roots of zoning and NIMBY attitudes are racial segregation.[0]
Re: Yimby housing bills are wildly unpopular in the state (CA), a new poll shows
#8of course, most people feel like the level of density they have now is roughly the correct level density, it just needs to "be cheaper". Nevermind trillions in infrastructure spending on the assumption of low density suburban lifestyle. I'll fight for YIMBY policy til the bitter end, but unless there's a cultural shift back towards the idea of stronger property freedoms wrt real estate, I don't see us making strides…
>urban woes The "urban woes" that suburban zoning laws were passed to prevent were minorities, not factories. The roots of zoning and NIMBY attitudes are racial segregation.[0] [0] https://wwnorton.com/books/The-Color-of-Law/
I agree, but there were genuinely a lot of issues with industrial revolution living (tenements, poor sanitation, pollution, etc) and preventing these is something I've seen as a pro-zoning talking point.
Re: Yimby housing bills are wildly unpopular in the state (CA), a new poll shows
#9of course, most people feel like the level of density they have now is roughly the correct level density, it just needs to "be cheaper". Nevermind trillions in infrastructure spending on the assumption of low density suburban lifestyle. I'll fight for YIMBY policy til the bitter end, but unless there's a cultural shift back towards the idea of stronger property freedoms wrt real estate, I don't see us making strides…
>I'll fight for YIMBY policy til the bitter end
Man I'd just move if I lived somewhere like that. In fact, I did. There's infrastructure, dense housing, etc. I can select exactly what I want in the "affordability, amenities, commute" triangle and am supper happy with what I have. I also pretty much just walked in and filled out the application for my current apartment. There are condos around here that I can afford and I'm thinking about buying one soon. The trip to my parent's isn't too too long so I still visit them (and they visit me) a few times a month.
Let the NIMBYs have their crappy low density neighborhoods with half their neighbors living on their lawns. Don't be the man raging against the machine.
Re: Yimby housing bills are wildly unpopular in the state (CA), a new poll shows
#10> Only 12 percent of respondents said California needs more market-rate housing, and 61 percent said the state needs more affordable housing and housing for homeless people. I don't think most people understand that if market-rate housing isn't built en masse, and there's just 'affordable housing' allowed, the result will be mostly insanely expensive housing for the vast majority and a small token effort at affordabl…
I worry that they understand too well the law of supply and demand, and prefer a small amount of designated affordable housing if it lets them salve their conscience over keeping the overall supply down, so that their own home values can continue to skyrocket. But I don't know for sure. Someone should research this... but they would need to be very skeptical and probing, not just taking people's statements at face va…
There's some truth to this, but it doesn't paint the full picture. In high-demand areas it's the land that's valuable, not the structures on the land. If Palo Alto, say, were upzoned prices wouldn't fall. Developers would love to buy that land and develop it.
That's not to say that literally every single neighborhood would benefit from upzoning, but the areas most in need of upzoning do have this property.
Yet homeowners oppose it. This suggests that their arguments against zoning are sincere. People genuinely do not want more density in their neighborhoods. It's not entirely a cynical ploy to boost home values.