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

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

#41

Post by TulliusCicero » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 8:10 AM UTC

rspeer wrote: post #25

sandworm101 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luxury has some scientific definitions. Top of the list is size for a single-family dwelling. My city has liberalized zoning for size, but kept limits on number of occupants and such for fear of impacting infrastructure. The result is ever-larger units. New houses seem less like houses and more like diagrams of local building codes. Property line minus ten feet, there's your wall. Luxury apartments can also be define…

If the problem is that overseas investors are buying the houses, sure, that's a problem that decreases the amount of living space. But how would restrictive zoning fix that problem? And I still don't think the flipping is relevant in the long run. It's pent-up demand sorting itself out. They can't keep flipping forever.

> But how would restrictive zoning fix that problem?

Not only does restrictive zoning not fix the problem, it only makes it worse. Part of why you have investors buying properties in places like SF is that housing is such a hot commodity due to the restricted supply. If it was easy to make lots more apartments and condos there, it would be less attractive as an investment, which would mean less speculation.

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

#42

Post by spacecowboy_lon » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 9:30 AM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #27

HillaryBriss wrote: post #26

> The lost opportunities for development may theoretically reduce the output of the United States economy by as much as $1.5 trillion a year We should also do away with National Parks and Forests, which are nothing more than zoning laws at the Federal level. For that matter, state and local parks get in the way too. How much lost economic output are restrictions on real estate development in Golden Gate Park costing…

You are thinking about things in exactly the wrong way. For every 1 story increase in building height in a San Francisco apartment complex, there is 10 less houses that have to be build in Suburbia. 10 parcels of land that can now be converted to national parks, and public spaces. People need a place to live whether you like it or not. We can either make room for them in the cities, by increasing density and building…

But not everyone wants to live in an apartment/flat there are serious downsides to lease hold property's.

A co worker was on the residents committee for a block of flats (london UK) that had to have the roof replaced not cheap and the original contrcator did it wrong and they had to sue them and have it redone.

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

#43

Post by Tharkun » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 9:31 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #12

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.…

These gross generalizations are horrible. There is no European way and I doubt there is a homogenous US way either.

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

#44

Post by pas » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 9:45 AM UTC

spacecowboy_lon wrote: post #42

stale2002 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are thinking about things in exactly the wrong way. For every 1 story increase in building height in a San Francisco apartment complex, there is 10 less houses that have to be build in Suburbia. 10 parcels of land that can now be converted to national parks, and public spaces. People need a place to live whether you like it or not. We can either make room for them in the cities, by increasing density and building…

But not everyone wants to live in an apartment/flat there are serious downsides to lease hold property's. A co worker was on the residents committee for a block of flats (london UK) that had to have the roof replaced not cheap and the original contrcator did it wrong and they had to sue them and have it redone.

Yes, and?

But living in your own house means you have your own roof, that can just as well needs maintenance, and you also can pick a bad contractor, and so on.

There are trade-offs. And there are external costs. Having your own backyard means usually having and using a car, taking up space close to downtown (because fuck commute times, right?) for just a family (and taking up road capacity too). These are currently undervalued.

The whole housing calamity in the Bay Area (and in London and Berlin) is manifestation of exactly this. (Plus idiotic zoning laws and height restrictions, and of course grafts, bribes, corruption, and the usual.)

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

#45

Post by spacecowboy_lon » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 10:35 AM UTC

pas wrote: post #44

spacecowboy_lon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not everyone wants to live in an apartment/flat there are serious downsides to lease hold property's. A co worker was on the residents committee for a block of flats (london UK) that had to have the roof replaced not cheap and the original contrcator did it wrong and they had to sue them and have it redone.

Yes, and? But living in your own house means you have your own roof, that can just as well needs maintenance, and you also can pick a bad contractor, and so on. There are trade-offs. And there are external costs. Having your own backyard means usually having and using a car, taking up space close to downtown (because fuck commute times, right?) for just a family (and taking up road capacity too). These are currently…

Its the difference between a £250,000k Job and a £10k one ogh and coordinating 50-70 different lease holder to pay their share.

Even more extream if your looking at a listed building - which I did when I was looking at buying a ex alms house listed in Pevsner (one of only two buildings of note in my home town)

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

#46

Post by duncan_bayne » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 11:53 AM UTC

morgante wrote: post #19

toomuchtodo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Bryson made the same point about anti-immigration forces in the USA (and the same applies elsewhere, like Australia where I live).

"Immigration was just fine for my grandparents, but now it's about time it stopped."

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

#47

Post by Symmetry » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 12:34 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #29

stale2002 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are thinking about things in exactly the wrong way. For every 1 story increase in building height in a San Francisco apartment complex, there is 10 less houses that have to be build in Suburbia. 10 parcels of land that can now be converted to national parks, and public spaces. People need a place to live whether you like it or not. We can either make room for them in the cities, by increasing density and building…

Assuming that suburban houses and apartments in urban multistory complexes are fungible (which they are not).

The statistics I've seen in the US are that about 1/3 of people would prefer living in city centers, 1/3 would prefer suburbia, and 1/3 don't care. And currently 80% of people live in suburbia because city centers are expensive. Apartments and suburban houses aren't the same but our tax and regulatory structure is strongly pushing people towards the later even if that's not what they want.

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

#48

Post by Dowwie » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 12:37 PM UTC

In a realistic scenario, de-regulated zoning around San Francisco would benefit developers and lenders while worsening the financial burden of the middle class.

If zoning were de-regulated around San Francisco, I doubt that many of you would pay much less than what you'd pay now for housing, assuming you're not making less than the AMI.

San Francisco had an Area Median Income in 2014 of $83,222. Those who make below this qualify for affordable housing. If you want to imagine what kind of housing policy the bay area would implement, look to what the DelBlasio administration is doing [1]. In 2015, the AMI for a family of four in New York City was $86,300. According to the DelBlasio administration's plan, "there will be affordable housing available for each level of income from “Extremely Low Income” to “Middle Income.” The middle group, “Low Income” will benefit the most, receiving nearly 60 percent of the 200,000 projected units. Each of the other levels of income will receive eight to 12 percent of the units."

So, given that you wouldn't qualify for affordable housing, you'll end up buying new property at market-driven prices. If developers were to flood the market with thousands of additional units, how would that affect prices? If you were a developer, wouldn't you try to maximize profit for your investors? With that given, developers would collude. They'd roll out new, optimally priced units over time. They'll make excuses to policymakers as to why projects are delayed.

Today, the middle class can't even get a chance to buy something that it can't afford. With de-regulated housing, the former constraint is lifted and new homeowners will be heavily debt-burdened with super-jumbo non-conforming mortgages. However, you'll have somewhere to live.

[1] http://www.amny.com/real-estate/affordable-housing-in-new-yo...

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

#49

Post by Symmetry » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 12:39 PM 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…

The important question is, has the quantity of housing gone up as quickly as the city's population? As with most things if there's a something preventing enough stuff from being built it will be the rich who get it. Also, I'd really like to see the numbers on vacancy percentage in your city. I'd be willing to be that they aren't actually very far out of line with normal rates.

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

#50

Post by conjectures » Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 12:56 PM UTC

jwdunne wrote: post #37

firasd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good insight. I suspect that some American hesitation about "density" and "apartment buildings" is based on specific history from the 20th century and 'white flight' era. Do people from other countries really fear and disdain apartment buildings the same way? I don't... Related, interesting quote from someone talking to Jane Jacobs: http://www.citylab.com/design/2016/05/happy-100th-birthday-j... New, high-rise public…

In Salford, we had a regeneration project that replaced all the rundown terraced housing, from Salford's industrial era, with high rises. Due to the collapse of industry round here, deprivation and crime shot through the roof (to the point Latvia recommended its citizens not visit this city in particular). The high rises have become synonymous with that crime and deprivation. No one wants them at their back yard beca…

Home, sweet home.

I moved south, the weather and opportunities are better. But then I probably fall into most of the boxes outlined in the article.

However, the planning laws in the UK put brakes on growth down here. Having been in in Tokyo and London it's obvious why accommodation is cheaper (by about 50% [1]) in Japan than the UK: they build up and dense.

I think the argument of the article is more about the character of the places people move _to_ rather than the places they move _from_. Where cities are very expensive, it's too hard to get a toehold in the economy as someone new to the area/just starting out.

We need to get over the mistakes of the 50s and 60s and accept that if we want affordable housing for the masses we need higher, denser accommodation.

Unfortunately what we get is low density out-of-town box houses that aren't connected to any infrastructure. If we get much at all. Where there is development in the cities, it seems to be too little to shift prices.

[1] http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?coun...