6 ms·

Having recently moved to the Bay Area in the last year from Texas, I've been observing the NIMBYs and I've determined that it's very nuanced issue. I live in D

Having recently moved to the Bay Area in the last year from Texas, I've been observing the NIMBYs and I've determined that it's very nuanced issue. I live in Dublin, CA, one of the far East Bay suburbs that is actually constructing tons of highly dense, brand new housing. And I've closely observed long time residents and neighbors debate and challenge the developers putting in this housing. There are the obviously impractical folks, complaining about the aesthetics of highly dense townhomes/apartments and how they "ruin the hillside" with their "cookie-cutter" looks. But this is a relatively small group making a fuss. They're an easy target for the media. But there are those with practical concerns. Increases in burglaries and auto theft because thieves target newly constructed communities first due to easy pickings [1]. Schools that become so overcrowded that kids are being taught in mobiles because the schools can't build fast enough to accommodate the growth [2]. Traffic that comes to a standstill because the two lane roads can't be expanded fast enough and toll roads become the only rapidly deployable option [3]. Mass Transit that becomes standing room only due to the influx of new residents [4]. There are solutions to these problems (more police, more schools, more road construction), but these services are often not financed by the housing development authorities. Recent attempts to get the developers to shoulder more of this cost is often the next fight these communities face. Some of these things take a decade or more to resolve. Given all of this, it's understandable why some just go the easiest route possible and decide to block all new development. I'm not saying it's right, but hopefully this gives you a bit more context. It's not just long time residents fighting change for no reason. * [1] http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/04/07/dublin-residents-patrolling-their-own-streets-after-burglaries-spike/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/04/07/dublin-residents... * [2] http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_28252721/dublin-grapples-school-overcrowding http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_28252721/dublin-grap... * [3] http://abc7news.com/traffic/new-i-580-express-lanes-now-open-in-east-bay/1207229/ http://abc7news.com/traffic/new-i-580-express-lanes-now-open... * [4] http://www.ktvu.com/news/100269984-story http://www.ktvu.com/news/100269984-story

pjlegato 10y ago
It's true that dealing with a ton of new residents requires a lot of infrastructural work on the part of local governments. I don't think anyone denies that. The issue is that it's not a choice between getting a lot of new residents or not getting a lot of new residents. Empirically, tons of people are moving to the Bay Area every year, whether local governments like it or not, whether they make provision for that or not. It's happening, and there's no legal way to stop it. Resisting new development doesn't stop people from moving here, nor does it remove the need to build out new infrastructure. It simply makes property values become that much higher, because there's a fixed supply and a growing demand. This is, I think the main factor in why NIMBYs resist development: their own property is worth much more every year. Building new residences would only slow the rate of appreciation of their property.
- hkarthik 10y ago
  @pjlegato I think it's a fair point, but as a local resident I don't see the "attack on our property values" argument come up much with blocking new development. Again, it's something only a very small minority are concerned about because it's not an immediate problem that everyone feels right away compared to all the others.
  - pjlegato 10y ago
    I agree that most people don't conceptualize it in quite those terms, but the choice really is: * Allow new higher density development, accept that your neighborhood will be under construction for years and then will look vastly different forever; and besides that, the city has to divert budget from other things to pay for building expanded infrastructure now (because California property taxes are mostly fixed by Prop 13); * Fight development, the city spends that money on your pet project instead, the neighborhood looks the same as it always has, and then there's the bonus that your house will be worth a whole lot more in 5 or 10 years. This is why you have unremarkable 1950s-era 3 bedroom ranch houses that would go for 75k in most US suburbs selling for $2m in Silicon Valley. It's why you can pay $5000 a month for an apartment in San Francisco that would be $700 a month in most US cities.
- davmre 10y ago
  > Resisting new development doesn't stop people from moving here, nor does it remove the need to build out new infrastructure. Sure it does. People aren't living in tents (generally speaking). Population can't grow unless the housing supply does. There might still be a growing demand for Bay Area housing, but without supply growth, the effect of that demand is to push prices up until current residents are forced to leave. NIMBY housing policy has a lot of shitty side effects, but it does succeed at the basic goal of maintaining low population density.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    > Sure it does. People aren't living in tents (generally speaking). Population can't grow unless the housing supply does. Population can grow even if the housing supply does not, if the existing population becomes concentrated into fewer dwellings. Bay Area residents who used to have their own apartments or houses are now renting rooms and sharing apartments or houses with others. The people moving here are generally wealthier or higher paid than the existing residents, and will not be deterred from moving here until the number of high-paying job openings decreases. Regarding living in tents, there has been a noticeable increase in the homeless population in recent years. It's not clear if they were displaced from housing or came here from somewhere else, but there is no denying the increase.
davmre 10y ago
> Recent attempts to get the developers to shoulder more of this cost is often the next fight these communities face. Why would the people building the housing be responsible for these costs? If new people are moving to a community and consuming services, can't they pay for those services through taxes like everyone else?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Why would the people building the housing be responsible for these costs? If new people are moving to a community and consuming city services, can't they pay for those services through taxes like everyone else? Prop 13's property tax rate limitations made developer fees more important as a source of revenue to support city services (raising up-front property prices.) Under Prop 13 -- both the rate limitations and the assessment increase limitations -- "everybody else" isn't paying for the (full, prorated costs of) services through taxes, new homeowners are paying full-freight from full-value assessment and direct taxes, and by paying (or, for new purchasers of existing houses, in effect reimbursing the prior owner) for the development fees. Homeowners that have held their property longer still paid (or reimbursed) the development fees when they bought the house, but pay reduced share through direct property taxes.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    You don't even need to bring Prop 13 into the discussion. Depending upon both existing demographics of a town and the expected demographics of a new project, the development can lead to tax increases. Because, in many cases (especially outside of cities) most property taxes go to the schools, a development catering to young families is going to put a lot of pressure on an existing tax base in a community tending toward singles and couples with their kids off to college and beyond.
  - adrr 10y ago
    Community could always implement Mello-Roos tax which can be used to fund new infrastructure. Its how a lot of new communities pay for their schools and roads.
davidw 10y ago
> because the two lane roads can't be expanded fast enough You can't build your way out of congestion. http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/10/18/dealing-with-congestion http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/10/18/dealing-with-c... The structure of cities in the US needs to change some so that you can be close to more things: food, cafes, bars, barber/hairdresser... all that kind of stuff that's common on a regular basis. That way you don't have to clog up the roads for even the most minor of needs.
- int_handler 10y ago
  Agreed. At the same time, companies should invest more in distributed work places. Most of the congestion in the Bay Area and surrounding areas, extending through the Tri-Valley and into the Central Valley, is caused by commuter traffic.
  - makomk 10y ago
    Of course, the main reason house prices are so high in this area in the first place is because the tech industry is so heavily reliant on geographically centralized offices in the same area. Fix that and there's no reason for prices to keep shooting up in the first place.
smrtinsert 10y ago
These are all very well known implications of growth. You don't even have to cite them.
honkhonkpants 10y ago
I'm pretty surprised anyone thinks Dublin, California is "highly dense". It has half the population density of Oakland, and only double the overall population density of Alameda County, which is huge and empty. The only even remotely dense housing I can think of in Dublin are the apartments near the BART station, but even those are utterly car-dependent because there's nothing to which to walk. I challenge you to name even a single commercial establishment that fronts a walkable street instead of being totally surrounded by parking lots.
- prplhaz4 10y ago
  I don't think it's that Dublin is highly dense, it's that the new housing developments are (in comparison to the more spacious, less-planned communities). One of my good friends grew up there, and they lived in a regular neighborhood with normal sized houses and big yards. The new developments have units stacked high and smashed together. It may not be absolutely dense, but it is certainly more dense than necessary or desired by residents. Population density isn't a great measure here either, because Dublin has a ton of open/protected/unbuildable space, and even the planned communities have a certain target ratio of public/garden/playground use space. I think it's more a case of it's the 'burbs, and they'd like it to stay that way. https://www.bing.com/mapspreview?&ty=30&q=dublin%2c%20ca&satid=id.sid%3a5f53cf8e-51b5-5172-841a-084cf23f3a03&vdpid=9477&mb=37.747167~-121.970297~37.693464~-121.844469&tt=Dublin&tsts0=%2526ty%253d30%2526q%253ddublin%25252c%252520ca%2526satid%253did.sid%25253a5f53cf8e-51b5-5172-841a-084cf23f3a03%2526vdpid%253d9477%2526mb%253d37.747167~-121.970297~37.693464~-121.844469&tstt0=Dublin&cp=37.713186~-121.861704&lvl=18&style=h&ftst=0&ftics=False&v=2&sV=1&form=S00027 https://www.bing.com/mapspreview?&ty=30&q=dublin%2c%20ca&sat...
  - TulliusCicero 10y ago
    > The new developments have units stacked high and smashed together. It may not be absolutely dense, but it is certainly more dense than necessary or desired by residents. Not desired by the people living there? Or not desired by other people in Dublin? These are two very different things. > even the planned communities have a certain target ratio of public/garden/playground use space. Maintaining a certain amount of public space in the form of parks/playgrounds/plazas makes sense, but that shouldn't translate into shooting down high-density housing developments. > I think it's more a case of it's the 'burbs, and they'd like it to stay that way. This kind of attitude -- the "let's keep it this way, forever" attitude -- is exactly why the bay area is now largely unaffordable. Sure, we'd all love it if we could maintain a certain neighborhood style AND have affordable housing. But we can't. So, it comes down to what you value more: a style of neighborhood with more space between residents, or people being able to afford their rent without hour+ long commutes.
coredog64 10y ago
I lived in San Jose back when poor people could afford to live as far north as Redwood City. My elementary school (Stonegate) had portables back then.
rtpg 10y ago
>but these services are often not financed by the housing development authorities Train companies in Japan build train stations, but also malls, supermarkets, and real estate. I think it would be interesting to see more development that relies on this mixed-zone development. Sure, more people means more traffic, but being closer to things like shops could also reduce traffic. Perhaps no-parking stores to force people to walk, things like that.

pjlegato 10y ago

It's true that dealing with a ton of new residents requires a lot of infrastructural work on the part of local governments. I don't think anyone denies that. The issue is that it's not a choice between getting a lot of new residents or not getting a lot of new residents. Empirically, tons of people are moving to the Bay Area every year, whether local governments like it or not, whether they make provision for that or not. It's happening, and there's no legal way to stop it. Resisting new development doesn't stop people from moving here, nor does it remove the need to build out new infrastructure. It simply makes property values become that much higher, because there's a fixed supply and a growing demand. This is, I think the main factor in why NIMBYs resist development: their own property is worth much more every year. Building new residences would only slow the rate of appreciation of their property.

hkarthik 10y ago
@pjlegato I think it's a fair point, but as a local resident I don't see the "attack on our property values" argument come up much with blocking new development. Again, it's something only a very small minority are concerned about because it's not an immediate problem that everyone feels right away compared to all the others.
- pjlegato 10y ago
  I agree that most people don't conceptualize it in quite those terms, but the choice really is: * Allow new higher density development, accept that your neighborhood will be under construction for years and then will look vastly different forever; and besides that, the city has to divert budget from other things to pay for building expanded infrastructure now (because California property taxes are mostly fixed by Prop 13); * Fight development, the city spends that money on your pet project instead, the neighborhood looks the same as it always has, and then there's the bonus that your house will be worth a whole lot more in 5 or 10 years. This is why you have unremarkable 1950s-era 3 bedroom ranch houses that would go for 75k in most US suburbs selling for $2m in Silicon Valley. It's why you can pay $5000 a month for an apartment in San Francisco that would be $700 a month in most US cities.
davmre 10y ago
> Resisting new development doesn't stop people from moving here, nor does it remove the need to build out new infrastructure. Sure it does. People aren't living in tents (generally speaking). Population can't grow unless the housing supply does. There might still be a growing demand for Bay Area housing, but without supply growth, the effect of that demand is to push prices up until current residents are forced to leave. NIMBY housing policy has a lot of shitty side effects, but it does succeed at the basic goal of maintaining low population density.
- twblalock 10y ago
  > Sure it does. People aren't living in tents (generally speaking). Population can't grow unless the housing supply does. Population can grow even if the housing supply does not, if the existing population becomes concentrated into fewer dwellings. Bay Area residents who used to have their own apartments or houses are now renting rooms and sharing apartments or houses with others. The people moving here are generally wealthier or higher paid than the existing residents, and will not be deterred from moving here until the number of high-paying job openings decreases. Regarding living in tents, there has been a noticeable increase in the homeless population in recent years. It's not clear if they were displaced from housing or came here from somewhere else, but there is no denying the increase.

davmre 10y ago

> Recent attempts to get the developers to shoulder more of this cost is often the next fight these communities face. Why would the people building the housing be responsible for these costs? If new people are moving to a community and consuming services, can't they pay for those services through taxes like everyone else?

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Why would the people building the housing be responsible for these costs? If new people are moving to a community and consuming city services, can't they pay for those services through taxes like everyone else? Prop 13's property tax rate limitations made developer fees more important as a source of revenue to support city services (raising up-front property prices.) Under Prop 13 -- both the rate limitations and the assessment increase limitations -- "everybody else" isn't paying for the (full, prorated costs of) services through taxes, new homeowners are paying full-freight from full-value assessment and direct taxes, and by paying (or, for new purchasers of existing houses, in effect reimbursing the prior owner) for the development fees. Homeowners that have held their property longer still paid (or reimbursed) the development fees when they bought the house, but pay reduced share through direct property taxes.
- ghaff 10y ago
  You don't even need to bring Prop 13 into the discussion. Depending upon both existing demographics of a town and the expected demographics of a new project, the development can lead to tax increases. Because, in many cases (especially outside of cities) most property taxes go to the schools, a development catering to young families is going to put a lot of pressure on an existing tax base in a community tending toward singles and couples with their kids off to college and beyond.
- adrr 10y ago
  Community could always implement Mello-Roos tax which can be used to fund new infrastructure. Its how a lot of new communities pay for their schools and roads.

davidw 10y ago

> because the two lane roads can't be expanded fast enough You can't build your way out of congestion. http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/10/18/dealing-with-congestion http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/10/18/dealing-with-c... The structure of cities in the US needs to change some so that you can be close to more things: food, cafes, bars, barber/hairdresser... all that kind of stuff that's common on a regular basis. That way you don't have to clog up the roads for even the most minor of needs.

int_handler 10y ago
Agreed. At the same time, companies should invest more in distributed work places. Most of the congestion in the Bay Area and surrounding areas, extending through the Tri-Valley and into the Central Valley, is caused by commuter traffic.
- makomk 10y ago
  Of course, the main reason house prices are so high in this area in the first place is because the tech industry is so heavily reliant on geographically centralized offices in the same area. Fix that and there's no reason for prices to keep shooting up in the first place.

smrtinsert 10y ago

These are all very well known implications of growth. You don't even have to cite them.

honkhonkpants 10y ago

I'm pretty surprised anyone thinks Dublin, California is "highly dense". It has half the population density of Oakland, and only double the overall population density of Alameda County, which is huge and empty. The only even remotely dense housing I can think of in Dublin are the apartments near the BART station, but even those are utterly car-dependent because there's nothing to which to walk. I challenge you to name even a single commercial establishment that fronts a walkable street instead of being totally surrounded by parking lots.

prplhaz4 10y ago
I don't think it's that Dublin is highly dense, it's that the new housing developments are (in comparison to the more spacious, less-planned communities). One of my good friends grew up there, and they lived in a regular neighborhood with normal sized houses and big yards. The new developments have units stacked high and smashed together. It may not be absolutely dense, but it is certainly more dense than necessary or desired by residents. Population density isn't a great measure here either, because Dublin has a ton of open/protected/unbuildable space, and even the planned communities have a certain target ratio of public/garden/playground use space. I think it's more a case of it's the 'burbs, and they'd like it to stay that way. https://www.bing.com/mapspreview?&ty=30&q=dublin%2c%20ca&satid=id.sid%3a5f53cf8e-51b5-5172-841a-084cf23f3a03&vdpid=9477&mb=37.747167~-121.970297~37.693464~-121.844469&tt=Dublin&tsts0=%2526ty%253d30%2526q%253ddublin%25252c%252520ca%2526satid%253did.sid%25253a5f53cf8e-51b5-5172-841a-084cf23f3a03%2526vdpid%253d9477%2526mb%253d37.747167~-121.970297~37.693464~-121.844469&tstt0=Dublin&cp=37.713186~-121.861704&lvl=18&style=h&ftst=0&ftics=False&v=2&sV=1&form=S00027 https://www.bing.com/mapspreview?&ty=30&q=dublin%2c%20ca&sat...
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  > The new developments have units stacked high and smashed together. It may not be absolutely dense, but it is certainly more dense than necessary or desired by residents. Not desired by the people living there? Or not desired by other people in Dublin? These are two very different things. > even the planned communities have a certain target ratio of public/garden/playground use space. Maintaining a certain amount of public space in the form of parks/playgrounds/plazas makes sense, but that shouldn't translate into shooting down high-density housing developments. > I think it's more a case of it's the 'burbs, and they'd like it to stay that way. This kind of attitude -- the "let's keep it this way, forever" attitude -- is exactly why the bay area is now largely unaffordable. Sure, we'd all love it if we could maintain a certain neighborhood style AND have affordable housing. But we can't. So, it comes down to what you value more: a style of neighborhood with more space between residents, or people being able to afford their rent without hour+ long commutes.

coredog64 10y ago

I lived in San Jose back when poor people could afford to live as far north as Redwood City. My elementary school (Stonegate) had portables back then.

rtpg 10y ago

>but these services are often not financed by the housing development authorities Train companies in Japan build train stations, but also malls, supermarkets, and real estate. I think it would be interesting to see more development that relies on this mixed-zone development. Sure, more people means more traffic, but being closer to things like shops could also reduce traffic. Perhaps no-parking stores to force people to walk, things like that.