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

Measuring the impact of zoning on housing in a city

blog.jonathannolan.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Measuring the impact of zoning on housing in a city

#51

Post by 8note »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #21
boplicity wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, it may not have just been that 5 acres was enough "room" for five houses. It gets into questions of building infrastructure for those houses -- sewers, water rights, etc. One development of 5 houses might not move the needle on that, but it then opens the door to neighbors doing the same thing, which could very much require major investment in infrastructure for the area.

> One development of 5 houses might not move the needle on that, but it then opens the door to neighbors doing the same thing, which could very much require major investment in infrastructure for the area. But then there is a corresponding increase in property tax revenues to pay for it, so this should require no approval and just be something that happens. The city pays for the new infrastructure from the taxes paid…

> But then there is a corresponding increase in property tax revenues to pay for it, so this should require no approval and just be something that happens. The city pays for the new infrastructure from the taxes paid by the new people using it.

This is a conjecture that as far as I know does not match what actually happens, which is that the new infrastructure is paid by debt, and the 4 new taxpayers will not have paid off the debt before the infrastructure needs replacement, paid for by more debt.

If it was 600 new units rather than 4, maybe it works out that the corresponding taxes pay for the infrastructure, but property taxes just aren't high enough, and the people who live in these boondoggle houses aren't wealthy enough to pay the taxes for the infrastructure their houses need

Re: Measuring the impact of zoning on housing in a city

#52

Post by AnthonyMouse »

8note wrote: post #49
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see the issue with this? Consider the incentives the government has created here. You can't build new housing, or it's extremely expensive because it's limited to specific lots and then you have to buy out whatever happens to be there even if they don't want to sell, and destroy a 5 story building in order to build a 10 story building, doubling costs while halving the increase in housing. Housing is thereby…

The owner of a second home isn't a supplier though, they're a hoarder

But how are you proposing to distinguish them? It's all too easy to rent out a property on paper.

Re: Measuring the impact of zoning on housing in a city

#53

Post by rootusrootus »

renewiltord wrote: post #43
boplicity wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, it may not have just been that 5 acres was enough "room" for five houses. It gets into questions of building infrastructure for those houses -- sewers, water rights, etc. One development of 5 houses might not move the needle on that, but it then opens the door to neighbors doing the same thing, which could very much require major investment in infrastructure for the area.

How were any houses built at all originally? Surely there were no sewers once upon a time.

Used to be that an acre of land generally had enough space for a proper septic tank and drain field. But I think in some places it is a little higher now. Depends a lot on local geography of course.

Re: Measuring the impact of zoning on housing in a city

#54

Post by rootusrootus »

returningfory2 wrote: post #47
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main thing you actually want from zoning is to separate noxious/industrial uses from everything else. Houston is weird if it doesn't even do that. None of that other stuff is a problem. Living in a single-family home next to an office tower isn't any worse than living in a condo tower next to an office tower. People just aren't used to it because it's prohibited nearly anywhere else.

> Living in a single-family home next to an office tower isn't any worse than living in a condo tower next to an office tower. By the way, this is very common in many Latin American countries such as Colombia. When you walk through these neighborhoods it's at first a bit odd because you're not used to seeing single family homes next to towers (coming from the US at least). But then you realize it's totally fine and t…

> I feel like one partial solution for NIMBY brain is travelling to cities in other countries and seeing things are different and realizing that it's actually totally fine.

I'd be surprised. Plenty of people would be horrified at the idea of living in a detached home next to a skyscraper.

Re: Measuring the impact of zoning on housing in a city

#55

Post by maxsilver »

renewiltord wrote: post #43
boplicity wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, it may not have just been that 5 acres was enough "room" for five houses. It gets into questions of building infrastructure for those houses -- sewers, water rights, etc. One development of 5 houses might not move the needle on that, but it then opens the door to neighbors doing the same thing, which could very much require major investment in infrastructure for the area.

How were any houses built at all originally? Surely there were no sewers once upon a time.

It depends on the area. In Michigan, for example, the area here is mostly swampland, houses with no infrastructure have to build their own. Usually that means running new power lines, and figuring out well water and septic. Septic is trickier than it seems, you need to have enough space for a leech field large enough to drain properly, it needs to flow properly (away from your home, away from your own well) and soil absorption has to be high enough (and the water line low enough) to handle it all. Having a lot of land isn't enough on it's own, it has to have enough natural drainage to be able to handle itself and anything you need to seep into it.

For example, you might have an acre of land, but if too much of the soil underneath is clay, or if the water table is too high, the wastewater might not drain fast enough, so it sits and stagnates or mixes with freshwater, despite having "lots of land". You generally need a surveyor to produce and sign off on a Topographical Survey to assess that.

So yeah, "there were no sewers once upon a time", sure. But if you try to build suburban-like densities out here without a solid plan signed off, you are likely to end up piping your own sewage right into your own water taps.

https://www.miottawa.org/Health/OCHD/pdf/AboutSewage.pdf

Re: Measuring the impact of zoning on housing in a city

#56

Post by AnthonyMouse »

8note wrote: post #51
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One development of 5 houses might not move the needle on that, but it then opens the door to neighbors doing the same thing, which could very much require major investment in infrastructure for the area. But then there is a corresponding increase in property tax revenues to pay for it, so this should require no approval and just be something that happens. The city pays for the new infrastructure from the taxes paid…

> But then there is a corresponding increase in property tax revenues to pay for it, so this should require no approval and just be something that happens. The city pays for the new infrastructure from the taxes paid by the new people using it. This is a conjecture that as far as I know does not match what actually happens, which is that the new infrastructure is paid by debt, and the 4 new taxpayers will not have pa…

> This is a conjecture that as far as I know does not match what actually happens, which is that the new infrastructure is paid by debt, and the 4 new taxpayers will not have paid off the debt before the infrastructure needs replacement, paid for by more debt.

If four taxpayers aren't paying the amount of taxes required to fund the infrastructure needed by four taxpayers then your city is already bankrupt and zoning and planning is irrelevant.

> If it was 600 new units rather than 4

If it was literally only 4 units then you shouldn't need any new infrastructure anyway. Nothing should be operating with margins that thin to begin with.

If it's 4 units here, 4 units there then it adds up to hundreds which is the thing you admit isn't a problem.

Re: Measuring the impact of zoning on housing in a city

#57

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rootusrootus wrote: post #54
returningfory2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Living in a single-family home next to an office tower isn't any worse than living in a condo tower next to an office tower. By the way, this is very common in many Latin American countries such as Colombia. When you walk through these neighborhoods it's at first a bit odd because you're not used to seeing single family homes next to towers (coming from the US at least). But then you realize it's totally fine and t…

> I feel like one partial solution for NIMBY brain is travelling to cities in other countries and seeing things are different and realizing that it's actually totally fine. I'd be surprised. Plenty of people would be horrified at the idea of living in a detached home next to a skyscraper.

Would they be equally horrified at living in a skyscraper next to a skyscraper?

Re: Measuring the impact of zoning on housing in a city

#58

Post by returningfory2 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #54
returningfory2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Living in a single-family home next to an office tower isn't any worse than living in a condo tower next to an office tower. By the way, this is very common in many Latin American countries such as Colombia. When you walk through these neighborhoods it's at first a bit odd because you're not used to seeing single family homes next to towers (coming from the US at least). But then you realize it's totally fine and t…

> I feel like one partial solution for NIMBY brain is travelling to cities in other countries and seeing things are different and realizing that it's actually totally fine. I'd be surprised. Plenty of people would be horrified at the idea of living in a detached home next to a skyscraper.

That's sort of my point though. It's easy to be "horrified" by things in the abstract. But then you actually visit Bogota, Colombia or Buenos Aires, Argentina and go through these neighborhoods and realize they're actually really nice despite being different to what you're used to.

Re: Measuring the impact of zoning on housing in a city

#59

Post by renewiltord »

maxsilver wrote: post #55
renewiltord wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How were any houses built at all originally? Surely there were no sewers once upon a time.

It depends on the area. In Michigan, for example, the area here is mostly swampland, houses with no infrastructure have to build their own. Usually that means running new power lines, and figuring out well water and septic. Septic is trickier than it seems, you need to have enough space for a leech field large enough to drain properly, it needs to flow properly (away from your home, away from your own well) and soil…

It seems like that's the method to build his 5 houses then, rather than denying it. It seems unlikely that the present number of houses is the precise optimal number.

Re: Measuring the impact of zoning on housing in a city

#60

Post by epistasis »

all2 wrote: post #16
Workaccount2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by taxing / fining people for having a second home. I don't see the issue with this? The profits in Canadian real estate are not on the back of some new found resource. It's entirely an effective wealth redistribution from have-nots to haves. If you have property, the vast amount of value in it is strictly from the fact that it is artificially scarce. To get into the "haves" you have to pay an artificial tax in the…

The grossly inflated price comes from where though? I'd put it to you that a ban on usury where real estate was concerned would crush land values over night. Easy money (cheap loans) allow speculation, and speculation is one of the primary drivers of land value.

A far bigger driver of speculation is scarcity. Without that scarcity, loans would do nothing to drive land value.

Tight zoning is the primary driver of real estate value, because it further increases the scarcity of land. It makes small homes worth absolutely insane values.

Further, though eliminating cheap loans will limit the amount that people can pay for the real estate, it also reduces the ability of people to pay, so every person is back to the same place with scarcity. So though eliminating loans may change the face value of the cost of housing, in real terms, eliminating loans does nothing for ordinary's people ability to obtain housing where they want it. Only increasing supply by removing overly restrictive zoning will actually improve the material conditions for people.

All that said, we should definitely eliminate financial products in the US like the 30 year fixed rate mortgage, a government creation that does inflate prices, while reducing the ability of people to move. But we should get rid of it primarily because it reduces the ability of people to move by trapping them into the home they were in when mortgage rates were low.

Post reply on HN