11–20 of 32 posts
Even assuming there's no increase in traffic, or any other negative side effects, you still lose tons of money as your home would appreciate at a lower rate with more housing being built.
I personally think California is too far gone
of 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 a…
of 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/
> "With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances."
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/365
This is all plainly nonsense. These judges don't like apartment buildings. Great. Good for them. I don't like disco or onions. But they invented a constitutional justification for their distaste from thin air and that's modern zoning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 homeow…
I can't imagine locking in the price and paying homeowners the current value of their land.
For 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 ar…
But who am I to tell them they are not allowed to do these things? What would be next, they would tell me I'm not allowed to grill in my backyard? I'm hardly a libertarian but it amazes me that of all the absurd "rights" people fight for in this country, the right to use, develop, and maintain your house and property as you wish isn't one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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/
Yes, but not just that. Euclid v. Ambler makes it clear that modern zoning is also about pathologizing apartment living. It was a direct attack on density, which it literally described as parasitic. The decision is pretty wild: > "With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes r…
> ...in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district.
Ironically it's the low density that's parasitizing the city because the infrastructure maintenance is far more costly than what the low density residential tax base can support.
> 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…
https://ips-dc.org/report-towering-excess/
I think the 61% of people who want affordable housing and homeless housing recognize these failures, which is why they want a more direct solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 homeow…
I'm happy for them. That's all well and good, but when you buy a plot of land you buy that land, you don't get controlling interest in the whole neighborhood.
These shenanigans are starting to get cracked down upon at the state level, because of course local fiefdoms are going to craft self-serving policies. In aggregate, however, they ultimately strangle the economic potential of the state. There's a great writeup of how the state of California is bringing discipline to the (lack of) statewide housing development here[1].
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/nqpc91/lets_tal...
> 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 think the view that we “just need more market-rate housing” is simplistic. Blindly building lots of housing doesn’t necessarily mean that people are going to move there. In Boston, for example, many of the luxury condos that have been built are being used as investment properties: https://ips-dc.org/report-towering-excess/ I think the 61% of people who want affordable housing and homeless housing recognize these fa…
[1]: https://www.boston.gov/departments/assessing/filing-property...