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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

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

#71

Post by TheCoelacanth »

ars wrote: post #68
wallflower wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The European way, in many ways, was a consequence of geography and, to a lesser degree, climate. The US is a car-centric culture that is fueled by (relatively) cheap gasoline (energy prices). Take for instance shopping malls. Shopping malls in Asia (usually in urban centers) build up vertically while in the United States they are build out horizontally with acres and acres of parking spaces. Some of the best US citie…

> Some of the best US cities have European-like features Careful with calling it "best". Not everyone likes that kind of thing in a city. I don't. I hate those types of cities, I feel very stressed and oppressed ("squished" if you get what I mean) when I go to cities designed in that way. I can handle it for a visit, but I would never want to live there. Different people like different things, that's why we have a va…

The problem is we don't allow a variety of cities anymore. We have effectively outlawed the denser European-style cities. The only ones that exist are those that are old enough to be grandfathered in.

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

#72

Post by 1024core »

natrius wrote: post #65
1024core wrote: post #63

The only viable solution, keeping both sides happy, is to have a kickass public transportation system. I live in SF. Some of the working class people I meet live as far away as Richmond, Vallejo and Gilroy. They spend hours commuting back and forth; but they have no choice. It kills the 'quality of life', but what can one do? If, for example, it was possible to get from Richmond to SF in 15 minutes at any time of day…

Shipping people in from economically segregated exurbs is not a solution to a segregation problem. We could just repeal the laws that are hurting families with less wealth. The controversy on this issue should be a huge red flag: we've allowed the power of our governments to be wielded on behalf of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, and our political culture finds that acceptable. Fix the culture. Repeal th…

> Shipping people in from economically segregated exurbs is not a solution to a segregation problem.

That is not the idea. The idea is to let people live where they want to live, without the weight of the commute hanging over them. And even if someone chooses to live far away, they should still be able to maintain a decent quality of life.

There is no denying that dwellings closer to the city centers are in higher demand, and hence cost more. I posit that it is primarily due to a mediocre transportation system. If the Bay Area had a world-class high-speed system, the demand would be reduced, lowering the prices and benefiting everyone.

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

#73

Post by davidf18 »

I live in Manhattan with its very high housing costs.

As Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser, Economics Nobelist Paul Krugmann, Financial Times columnist and an economist Tim Harford have been saying, the issues are politically induced housing scarcity through the use of zoning density restrictions and also overuse of historic landmark status. The use of politics to create artificial scarcity to create market inefficiencies is called "rent-seeking" in Microeconomics.

Another example was the NYC limit of 13,000 Taxi medallions which lead to a market value for medallions of $1.2 million. Then Uber/Lyft came along to disrupt the market and provide more transportation in NYC and the value of the medallions dropped to less than $700 K.

I believe that Congress is looking into the zoning form of "rent-seeking" with the understanding that zoning is not necessarily local but might be federal to override this inherent unfairness where older people housing expensive and scare for younger people.

For more info: Edward Glaeser: Build Big Bill (Mayor of NYC) http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1....

Tim Harford: The Undercover Economist. https://www.amazon.com/Undercover-Economist-Revised-Updated-...

Creating these politically induced market inefficiencies are what create an inherent transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy and from the young to the old and of course is a major contributor to financial inequality.

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

#74

Post by wdr1 »

This article has gotten a fair bit of attention here in Santa Monica. We have the highest rents in LA, possibly one of the strongest anti-development communities, and aggressive rent control.

This fall there will be an initiative on the ballot called "L.U.V.E." which will require any development over two stories to get voter approval. It's actually split the anti-development activists apart, as some of them think it goes too far.

It's a beautiful city, but part of me feels like it's a ticking time bomb due to lack of education in society. Much like there was broad rejection of vaccinations here, there's rejection of the concept of supply & demand (some calling it a "Republican conspiracy.")

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

#75

Post by duncan_bayne »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #58
duncan_bayne wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

> "Immigration was just fine for my grandparents, but now it's about time it stopped." That's a mischaracterization though. The fundamental equation for immigration is to make sure the immigrants don't bring down the average. When your grandparents came here the average was lower than it is now. Which is why it's a lot easier to get a green card if you have a masters in engineering than if you're a farm hand. It fund…

> It fundamentally has to be that way if you want to have any sort of a social safety net, otherwise the majority of world population would take citizenship and become eligible for social assistance.

I agree entirely, which is why the (if there is a 'the') Libertarian position on the matter is a combination of open immigration and private charity instead of socialism.

http://pc.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/immigration-is-fundamental...

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

#76

Post by paulddraper »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #36
mtviewdave wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "corporation" you've described is a government. Literally. A government (in the United States) is just a mechanism for an area's resident citizenry to express their collective will. Whether you call it "government" with "citizens", or a "corporation" with "shareholders", it's the same thing.

They fill similar conceptual roles, but the details are different.

...and those details are?

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

#77

Post by uola »

morgante wrote: post #52
greeneggs wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what is incoherent about the anti-growth mentality. You seem to be trying to make a rhetorical point instead of an argument. There really are costs to current residents to allowing unfettered growth. Increased traffic, for example, materially reduces people's quality of life. People vote for their own self interests, and calling someone "incoherent" simply because they were born in Boulder and love their…

Sorry, I should have been clearer that it's not all anti-growth advocates who are incoherent. If you were born somewhere and are attached to the way of life you've known since you were born, it's certainly an argument. I don't agree with it, but it's not incoherent. I'm referring to the people (particularly in SF) who moved there a decade or more ago yet are virulently opposed to "tech workers" doing the same thing.…

It's not hard to imagine that grntrification only have net good effects up to a point for many people.

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

#78

Post by AnthonyMouse »

benlangmuir wrote: post #70
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasing the housing supply would tend to cause nominal housing prices to decrease. Increasing the money supply would tend to cause nominal housing prices to increase. Do them both at the same time and they cancel.

Ah, reading comprehension failure on my part. Wouldn't the effects of the inflation be out of proportion with the housing supply increase, though? Printing money will affect many prices, but the housing supply only affects the local housing market.

Sure, the nominal prices of everything else would increase, as would wages so that purchasing power would remain largely unchanged. Moderate inflation is basically harmless -- in a lot of ways it's beneficial. It's effectively a tax on money (especially on lenders), which makes it extremely progressive. (That is one of the reasons deflation is so catastrophic. The other is that deflation makes cash an investment, so people would hoard cash instead of investing in actually productive activities.)

And the government can use the new money in place of normal tax revenue, which helps the economy.

It's possible to go too far and have hyperinflation. It becomes problematic if prices double every day and nobody will accept your money because it will have lost half its value by the time they get to the bank, as is often the case in failing or mismanaged countries. But if we had e.g. ten percent inflation per year for several years, the effects would be a rather large net positive. It's basically a wealth transfer from lenders to borrowers, where "borrowers" means the taxpayer (national debt), people with student loans or car loans or credit card debt, etc. And homeowners with mortgages, canceling the reduction in housing prices that would otherwise come from significantly increasing the housing stock.

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

#79

Post by natrius »

1024core wrote: post #72
natrius wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shipping people in from economically segregated exurbs is not a solution to a segregation problem. We could just repeal the laws that are hurting families with less wealth. The controversy on this issue should be a huge red flag: we've allowed the power of our governments to be wielded on behalf of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, and our political culture finds that acceptable. Fix the culture. Repeal th…

> Shipping people in from economically segregated exurbs is not a solution to a segregation problem. That is not the idea. The idea is to let people live where they want to live, without the weight of the commute hanging over them. And even if someone chooses to live far away, they should still be able to maintain a decent quality of life. There is no denying that dwellings closer to the city centers are in higher de…

I'm with you: let's build better transportation infrastructure. But we can't keep using our laws to segregate by income. Some income segregation is inevitable, but we shouldn't encourage it by making the good life scarce. More homes is good for everyone.

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

#80

Post by spacecowboy_lon »

pas wrote: post #61
spacecowboy_lon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

In my experience the paying the lease (or whatever the money due is formally called) is the least controversial part of it. You'll have more problems with the owners of the apartments. (So all the problems of the dreaded HOAs, exist for every building if it's owned by a group - which is quite usual in Europe.) But these are very low-level problems, and they tend to sort themselves out pretty quickly (in ~5 years, let…

Try getting a mortgage on a property with a short lease <60 Years it can be hard and expensive to extend the lease to make it practicabel.
Post reply on HN