How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality • Hacker News Board

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#11

Post by paulddraper » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 4:34 AM UTC

MichaelBurge wrote: post #6

They should just repeal zoning laws entirely. Maybe make an exception for polluting heavy industry, or for people using government money or government-backed loans. It should probably even be a constitutional amendment. People who want quiet suburbs can pool together a corporation to own a planned community. That limits the scope of their NIMBYism to just their community, and as shareholders they could vote on whethe…

Are you advocating something on the scale of a home owners' association, a suburb, or a large city?

Any way, I fail to see how it would be materially different. A group of people, who collectively own the land make rules (laws) about how it can be used by other member of the group.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#12

Post by ars » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 4:42 AM UTC

OedipusRex wrote: post #5

It's not so much that urban development kills "character", it's that current urban development methods are ugly. They have no class to them. The "not in my backyard" argument will always be brought about by people who's previously beautiful surroundings are replaced by brick rectangles with evenly spaced windows. The trick is to make urban areas attractive but not gentrified.

In Europe people go to the park to have solitude with nature and go home to interact with people [on the street by the house].

In the US people go to the park to interact with people, and go home to have solitude [hopefully with nature in their backyard, but even if not they want a quiet apartment without lots of people near them, or at least the illusion of it].

Some people prefer the US way, some the European way. But you have to build the city to match what people want.

The ugly urban cities are a result of a mismatch.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#13

Post by fenomas » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 4:44 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #4

michaelbuddy wrote: post #2

Does anyone really think that once they own property in a certain area that they are gonna believe in the 'anything goes' mentality? 'Growth' is subjective. "Hey look at all the great businesses in my neighborhood bringing in taxes! I mean sure they are all pot pharmacies and bars that my kid gets to pass on his way to elementary school but you know GROWTH!"

I think the issue is, everyone believes they should be able to become a stakeholder in a resource that is, by definition, naturally constrained. Only so many people get a say in a geographic area, and the stark reality is that once you reach a certain critical mass, you're incentivized to protect your quality of life over allowing for more people to join you. Strangely, its thought of as acceptable for tech workers (…

Interesting point, but surely the bar for where "critical mass" occurs depends entirely on social factors. That is, the neighborhood where I live (outside Tokyo) can absorb a lot more stakeholders than neighborhoods in Boulder, just because people are accustomed to different lifestyles (more apartments, fewer lawns, etc).

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#14

Post by MichaelBurge » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 4:45 AM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #11

MichaelBurge wrote: post #6

They should just repeal zoning laws entirely. Maybe make an exception for polluting heavy industry, or for people using government money or government-backed loans. It should probably even be a constitutional amendment. People who want quiet suburbs can pool together a corporation to own a planned community. That limits the scope of their NIMBYism to just their community, and as shareholders they could vote on whethe…

Are you advocating something on the scale of a home owners' association, a suburb, or a large city? Any way, I fail to see how it would be materially different. A group of people, who collectively own the land make rules (laws) about how it can be used by other member of the group.

I think people would have trouble setting up anything larger than a suburb. It's different because currently even the likes of Google can't just buy your house and replace it with a self-driving car garage. In this hypothetical world, all they would need to do is convince one of N different communities to sell or lease them the land.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#15

Post by sandworm101 » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 4:52 AM UTC

I don't think liberal zoning is the problem. I've seen my city go through massive changes in the last 30 years, top of the list being a radical increase, a liberalization, of zoning. They are allowing more and bigger developments. Multi-story and multi-unit developments are everywhere, but that isn't making housing any more affordable.

A piece of land with a liberal zoning is worth more. It is a target for redevelopment in order to max out the zoning. The net result in my local is the steady replacement of anything old (ie 10+ years) by newer ridiculously large replacements. Apartments and other attached units are now so expensive, and prices rising so steadily, that the logical thing to do is let them sit empty. The pittance one might claw back in rent pales in comparison to rising prices, and who needs pesky tenants anyway.

So... liberal zoning --> rising land values/prices --> redevelopment is better than renting --> fewer rental units = higher rent. It's true up and down the west coast. Now if a government told owners that no, they are not going to rip down that apartment block to replace it with luxury living, all-one-level, condos (ie for old/rich retirees) then perhaps prices might stabilize, sending more units into the rental market and so also stabilizing rents.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#16

Post by p4wnc6 » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 4:52 AM UTC

I feel that in many of these discussions, it's beneficial to see NIMBYism as a response to an incomplete insurance market, as described in [0].

This is not to say it is a complete or normative defense of NIMBYism, but rather that a lot of knee-jerk SJW sort of reaction is missing the point and failing to address, or even really attempt to understand, where NIMBYs are coming from.

Part of me wonders if this could be solved by tech, particularly insurance products that offer homeowners protection against the variety of ways that seemingly-great expansion projects can go wrong. I'd enjoy working on that sort of problem, except that so much of the current interest in this entire topic is political, and politicians have some incentive to maintain zoning-like systems because it offers them (the politicians) great opportunities for rent seeking, by being the gatekeepers of an approval process that should instead be more straightforward and just hedged by homeowners in the form of custom insurance products.

[0] "Why are there NIMBYs?" William Fischel, https://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/00-04.PDF >

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#17

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 4:58 AM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #15

I don't think liberal zoning is the problem. I've seen my city go through massive changes in the last 30 years, top of the list being a radical increase, a liberalization, of zoning. They are allowing more and bigger developments. Multi-story and multi-unit developments are everywhere, but that isn't making housing any more affordable. A piece of land with a liberal zoning is worth more. It is a target for redevelopm…

[deleted]

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#18

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 5:00 AM UTC

OedipusRex wrote: post #7

MichaelBurge wrote: post #6

They should just repeal zoning laws entirely. Maybe make an exception for polluting heavy industry, or for people using government money or government-backed loans. It should probably even be a constitutional amendment. People who want quiet suburbs can pool together a corporation to own a planned community. That limits the scope of their NIMBYism to just their community, and as shareholders they could vote on whethe…

I have the feeling if this happens land will be bought up by corporations, not the other way around.

[deleted]

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#19

Post by morgante » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 5:01 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #4

michaelbuddy wrote: post #2

Does anyone really think that once they own property in a certain area that they are gonna believe in the 'anything goes' mentality? 'Growth' is subjective. "Hey look at all the great businesses in my neighborhood bringing in taxes! I mean sure they are all pot pharmacies and bars that my kid gets to pass on his way to elementary school but you know GROWTH!"

I think the issue is, everyone believes they should be able to become a stakeholder in a resource that is, by definition, naturally constrained. Only so many people get a say in a geographic area, and the stark reality is that once you reach a certain critical mass, you're incentivized to protect your quality of life over allowing for more people to join you. Strangely, its thought of as acceptable for tech workers (…

What's strange about this at all? The pro-growth mentality is consistent: anyone can come, if they can afford it.

The anti-growth mentality is incoherent: it was fine for me to move here 20 years ago, but how dare tech workers try to do the same thing!

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#20

Post by HillaryBriss » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 5:06 AM UTC

OedipusRex wrote: post #5

It's not so much that urban development kills "character", it's that current urban development methods are ugly. They have no class to them. The "not in my backyard" argument will always be brought about by people who's previously beautiful surroundings are replaced by brick rectangles with evenly spaced windows. The trick is to make urban areas attractive but not gentrified.

> The trick is to make urban areas attractive ...

Other people can be a source of comfort, education, assistance and enrichment. But, other people can also prove to be a great source of annoyance, stress, competition, and fear.

Maybe an even more important trick than making things attractive in shared urban spaces is making all the new arrivals get along with and trust the existing people in the city, and vice versa.

But it doesn't look like the law gives cities what they need to ensure such an outcome. In order to promote urban productivity and tranquility in a nation where people are free to settle anywhere, there's a case to be made for giving local communities more, not less, control.