4 ms·

People aren't concerned their cute neighborhood is going to look like Hong Kong. They're concerned they won't see the rapid appreciaton of their assets and don'

People aren't concerned their cute neighborhood is going to look like Hong Kong. They're concerned they won't see the rapid appreciaton of their assets and don't make forcing the negative effects on anyone else. It makes me think you should be able to vote in both the place you live and work. I pay taxes to Palo Alto and spend the majority of my waking hours there, yet have no say in what rules and regulations the government makes (or doesn't) while I'm there.

jacobolus 10y ago
In the short term at least, I would expect re-zoning some low density residential neighborhoods to medium density mixed-use zones would substantially increase property values for those areas, because developers would want to buy out single family houses and replace them with larger buildings. From listening to anti-development folks, most of their arguments seem to be vague concerns about “neighborhood character” etc., rather than property values.
- mahyarm 10y ago
  Some segments know they can't be naked about their greed, so they use vague emotional terms. They usually mention it in offhand sentences. The built in incentives make sure they naturally arise wherever you go.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "From listening to anti-development folks, most of their arguments seem to be vague concerns about “neighborhood character” etc., rather than property values." I guess of the hundreds of thousands of people in multiple cities, counties, etc, who have voted for various types of development measures for many years (30+), literally none of them have any valid points that are worth discussing, and any concern about neighborhood character, etc, any of these folks make is really about property values. Sure seems likely there is only one true and right side on this!
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    What you’re claiming I think is exactly the opposite of what I wrote. I take people at their word that they’re concerned about neighborhood character. I never said such concerns were invalid or that there was only one right side. Sorry if the word “vague” comes across as dismissive. My primary point was that these cities are happy to add huge amounts of office space but are not willing to build housing at the same pace, and this is upending the housing market in the whole region and leading to massive problems with traffic and sprawl. Do you disagree?
pmiller2 10y ago
> It makes me think you should be able to vote in both the place you live and work. Oh, man, would I love to give SF a piece of my mind on my lunch hour on Tuesday. ;)
DannyBee 10y ago
"People aren't concerned their cute neighborhood is going to look like Hong Kong. They're concerned they won't see the rapid appreciation of their assets " You assert this as if it's true for all people. But it's really really not. I actually do not want to live in an urban area. I am worried my cute neighborhood will turn into hong kong. As the article says, we are going from suburban to urban with nothing in between. I don't actually give a crap about rapid appreciation of my home or anything else like that. People who actually can afford multi-million dollar houses can usually can afford to diversify, and with such low mortgage rates, it pretty much makes no sense to tie large amounts of equity in a home and hope for rapid appreciation. It's a very risky investment strategy. When most of the area was orchards, and some of the first development restrictions were passed, it was not about property values. I also don't think acting like yours is the only acceptable viewpoint, and nobody else could possibly have a valid concern, is going to get any of these issues solved. So, rather than just blindly assert what everyone's concerns and views are, and dismiss them out of hand, maybe you should try to have a well-reasoned discussion? (and FWIW, i'm actually not anti-development, i'm anti-people who don't actually want to have a reasoned discussion about things, and instead, just want to assert whatever view they've come up with. I'm honestly surprised at the arrogance in this thread).
- muninn_ 10y ago
  Good comment and perspective. I don't live in the Bay Area, but I actually hope that the problem gets worse and that non-development continues. It can/does keep some engineers here in areas like where I live. The primary issue the Bay Area has is that, as you mentioned, there is no in-between. It's either skyscrapers or gigantic houses with expansive yards. What the area actually needs is more mixed-use development neighborhoods.
  - eitally 10y ago
    By "gigantic" I'm sure you really mean is the 1200-1800sqft tract ranches from the 1940s-60s that consume the majority of the developed suburban land, right, because there are almost 0 gigantic houses in the region compared to literally every other major metro in the country. And that's one of the problems: too many people stretched their budgets to buy crappy $1m houses, they can't really afford to do it again, and prop 13 (plus impending rising mortgage rates) actively disincentivize anyone from selling after they manage to get into this market, no matter what their house is like.
IndianAstronaut 10y ago
This might actually be a major cause of wealth inequality we are experiencing right now. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-inequality http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-i...
kspaans 10y ago
I wonder how many people would accept a compromise of this: they vote to reduce building and density, but at the same time agree that their asset appreciation will go mostly to the city (via cap gains or land value taxes), rather than themselves. (Obviously this goes against Prop 13, but I still wonder how many people would be willing to admit that they want space rather than money.)

jacobolus 10y ago

In the short term at least, I would expect re-zoning some low density residential neighborhoods to medium density mixed-use zones would substantially increase property values for those areas, because developers would want to buy out single family houses and replace them with larger buildings. From listening to anti-development folks, most of their arguments seem to be vague concerns about “neighborhood character” etc., rather than property values.

mahyarm 10y ago
Some segments know they can't be naked about their greed, so they use vague emotional terms. They usually mention it in offhand sentences. The built in incentives make sure they naturally arise wherever you go.
DannyBee 10y ago
"From listening to anti-development folks, most of their arguments seem to be vague concerns about “neighborhood character” etc., rather than property values." I guess of the hundreds of thousands of people in multiple cities, counties, etc, who have voted for various types of development measures for many years (30+), literally none of them have any valid points that are worth discussing, and any concern about neighborhood character, etc, any of these folks make is really about property values. Sure seems likely there is only one true and right side on this!
- jacobolus 10y ago
  What you’re claiming I think is exactly the opposite of what I wrote. I take people at their word that they’re concerned about neighborhood character. I never said such concerns were invalid or that there was only one right side. Sorry if the word “vague” comes across as dismissive. My primary point was that these cities are happy to add huge amounts of office space but are not willing to build housing at the same pace, and this is upending the housing market in the whole region and leading to massive problems with traffic and sprawl. Do you disagree?

pmiller2 10y ago

> It makes me think you should be able to vote in both the place you live and work. Oh, man, would I love to give SF a piece of my mind on my lunch hour on Tuesday. ;)

DannyBee 10y ago

"People aren't concerned their cute neighborhood is going to look like Hong Kong. They're concerned they won't see the rapid appreciation of their assets " You assert this as if it's true for all people. But it's really really not. I actually do not want to live in an urban area. I am worried my cute neighborhood will turn into hong kong. As the article says, we are going from suburban to urban with nothing in between. I don't actually give a crap about rapid appreciation of my home or anything else like that. People who actually can afford multi-million dollar houses can usually can afford to diversify, and with such low mortgage rates, it pretty much makes no sense to tie large amounts of equity in a home and hope for rapid appreciation. It's a very risky investment strategy. When most of the area was orchards, and some of the first development restrictions were passed, it was not about property values. I also don't think acting like yours is the only acceptable viewpoint, and nobody else could possibly have a valid concern, is going to get any of these issues solved. So, rather than just blindly assert what everyone's concerns and views are, and dismiss them out of hand, maybe you should try to have a well-reasoned discussion? (and FWIW, i'm actually not anti-development, i'm anti-people who don't actually want to have a reasoned discussion about things, and instead, just want to assert whatever view they've come up with. I'm honestly surprised at the arrogance in this thread).

muninn_ 10y ago
Good comment and perspective. I don't live in the Bay Area, but I actually hope that the problem gets worse and that non-development continues. It can/does keep some engineers here in areas like where I live. The primary issue the Bay Area has is that, as you mentioned, there is no in-between. It's either skyscrapers or gigantic houses with expansive yards. What the area actually needs is more mixed-use development neighborhoods.
- eitally 10y ago
  By "gigantic" I'm sure you really mean is the 1200-1800sqft tract ranches from the 1940s-60s that consume the majority of the developed suburban land, right, because there are almost 0 gigantic houses in the region compared to literally every other major metro in the country. And that's one of the problems: too many people stretched their budgets to buy crappy $1m houses, they can't really afford to do it again, and prop 13 (plus impending rising mortgage rates) actively disincentivize anyone from selling after they manage to get into this market, no matter what their house is like.

IndianAstronaut 10y ago

This might actually be a major cause of wealth inequality we are experiencing right now. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-inequality http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-i...

kspaans 10y ago

I wonder how many people would accept a compromise of this: they vote to reduce building and density, but at the same time agree that their asset appreciation will go mostly to the city (via cap gains or land value taxes), rather than themselves. (Obviously this goes against Prop 13, but I still wonder how many people would be willing to admit that they want space rather than money.)