2 ms·

>Because their business actively contributes to these shortages NIMBY regulators are the ONLY significant contributor to long term shortages in affordable hous

>Because their business actively contributes to these shortages NIMBY regulators are the ONLY significant contributor to long term shortages in affordable housing. In other words, the local voters are the ones responsible for their own pain.

vkou 9y ago
NIMBY is only a small part of why boom cities do not have enough high-density, affordable housing exists. Not every metro area in the United States is as myopic as the Bay.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  What are the other problems then?
  - vkou 9y ago
    Developers providing overwhelming amounts of funding for political campaigns, razor-thin profit margins on non-luxury condos, setbacks, foreign millionaires, local millionaires, rent control, parking requirements, inadequate transit, low land taxes, airbnb, demand for school districts, the average homeowner having most of their wealth locked in a single illiquid asset, limited capital gains taxes on property appreciation... I could go on and on. There is no single lever that you can turn, and solve the housing problems of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Philadelphia, or NYC. Blaming voters for this situation is like saying that the 2008 financial crisis happened because of voters. Technically correct (We could have - in theory - elected someone who could have appointed someone who could have appointed someone who could have stopped that particular disaster), but not in any meaningful sense.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      >Developers providing overwhelming amounts of funding for political campaigns The developers who provide overwhelming amounts of funding for political campaigns are generally the ones trying to build new housing. So they're the opposition to the NIMBYs, they're your friends in this case. >razor-thin profit margins on non-luxury condos If the profit margins are razor thin, then there's probably an over-supply. >setbacks lolwut? >foreign millionaires, local millionaires The best way to fight them is to allow supply to increase at a rate to meet the market demands such that buying property and leaving it empty is a bad idea. Or at least isn't harmful to others who will still be able to find supply. >rent control This is again, something the local voters have done to themselves. >parking requirements If you build a new condo or whatever that has no parking you're probably going to go broke because no one will want to purchase your condos. >inadequate transit, low land taxes, demand for school districts Luckily we'll be building a bunch of new expensive properties who will be paying new higher taxes. Or better yet, we'll have AirBnB places that pay the same taxes, and bring in tourists who will pay sales taxes, etc. but won't be using most of that infrastructure like public schools. >the average homeowner having most of their wealth locked in a single illiquid asset, This is not something that stops new development, unles those average homeowners are the NIMBYs. >limited capital gains taxes on property appreciation. This certainly isn't something that stops new development. In fact, it should encourage it. >There is no single lever that you can turn, and solve the housing problems of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Philadelphia, or NYC. Sure, there's no SINGLE lever, but the biggest lever that will have the most impact is to let the market decide what kind of housing and how much to provide.

vkou 9y ago

NIMBY is only a small part of why boom cities do not have enough high-density, affordable housing exists. Not every metro area in the United States is as myopic as the Bay.

Consultant32452 9y ago
What are the other problems then?
- vkou 9y ago
  Developers providing overwhelming amounts of funding for political campaigns, razor-thin profit margins on non-luxury condos, setbacks, foreign millionaires, local millionaires, rent control, parking requirements, inadequate transit, low land taxes, airbnb, demand for school districts, the average homeowner having most of their wealth locked in a single illiquid asset, limited capital gains taxes on property appreciation... I could go on and on. There is no single lever that you can turn, and solve the housing problems of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Philadelphia, or NYC. Blaming voters for this situation is like saying that the 2008 financial crisis happened because of voters. Technically correct (We could have - in theory - elected someone who could have appointed someone who could have appointed someone who could have stopped that particular disaster), but not in any meaningful sense.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    >Developers providing overwhelming amounts of funding for political campaigns The developers who provide overwhelming amounts of funding for political campaigns are generally the ones trying to build new housing. So they're the opposition to the NIMBYs, they're your friends in this case. >razor-thin profit margins on non-luxury condos If the profit margins are razor thin, then there's probably an over-supply. >setbacks lolwut? >foreign millionaires, local millionaires The best way to fight them is to allow supply to increase at a rate to meet the market demands such that buying property and leaving it empty is a bad idea. Or at least isn't harmful to others who will still be able to find supply. >rent control This is again, something the local voters have done to themselves. >parking requirements If you build a new condo or whatever that has no parking you're probably going to go broke because no one will want to purchase your condos. >inadequate transit, low land taxes, demand for school districts Luckily we'll be building a bunch of new expensive properties who will be paying new higher taxes. Or better yet, we'll have AirBnB places that pay the same taxes, and bring in tourists who will pay sales taxes, etc. but won't be using most of that infrastructure like public schools. >the average homeowner having most of their wealth locked in a single illiquid asset, This is not something that stops new development, unles those average homeowners are the NIMBYs. >limited capital gains taxes on property appreciation. This certainly isn't something that stops new development. In fact, it should encourage it. >There is no single lever that you can turn, and solve the housing problems of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Philadelphia, or NYC. Sure, there's no SINGLE lever, but the biggest lever that will have the most impact is to let the market decide what kind of housing and how much to provide.