3 ms·

The location requirement can be covered by the bid proposal of the developer. The can say the development requires certain features. It will be in their interes

The location requirement can be covered by the bid proposal of the developer. The can say the development requires certain features. It will be in their interest to make this as broad as possible so they create the maximum competition between communities for the development. For example developers could make the conditions so tight that only one location met all the requirements pushing up the cost since that community would know this was the only site and so hold off bidding. Alternatively, the developer could set the conditions broadly so that more communities would bid lowering the cost. The nice thing about this is the friendlier the developer makes the proposal to a community the lower the price they will have pay. The community gets development that maximises their returns while the developer is encouraged to create community friendly developments.

schoen 8y ago
Thanks for the interesting response! I wonder how many developers currently think this way (in terms of explicitly specified sets of features rather than specific sites). And, what's more, how eager would they be to be seen to be thinking this way in a public bid? One thing that comes to mind is that some developers might not want to publicly specify some of the features that actually matter to them, for example things about neighborhood incomes, crime rates, homelessness, or other neighborhood demographics. Still, developers may feel that these things will significantly affect the suitability of a site to a profitable project, but not want to deal with the public relations aspects of spelling out their reasoning. I'm not sure how strong an argument that is against your proposal, but maybe developers would consider it pretty fundamental. Edit: Also, it's amusing to think about people trying to quantify aesthetic fit. "We want to build this development in a place that McMansion Hell thinks is overall pretty tacky, but not super tacky." "We want to build this development in a place with an average of 12 architectural classiness points, but in any case not more than 17 classiness points."
- danieltillett 8y ago
  All those other considerations you mention will play a role, but they will affect the final sale price and hence the undeveloped land value. Developers will be worried about the spread between site acquisition costs (land + development bid cost) and final sale price. Locations with problems will have lower undeveloped land values. In practice this proposal would work best when land owners and communities work together to put together potential sites that meet developers needs. I think developers will hate this idea because instead of the whole surplus going to them and their corrupt buddies in government, it will have to be shared with the local community. Since the bid will be public there is no way to payoff someone in the planning department to get approval for your development. Of course from my perspective this is a feature not a bug.
  - schoen 8y ago
    > I think developers will hate this idea because instead of the whole surplus going to them and their corrupt buddies in government, it will have to be shared with the local community. I would think if there were a lot of developers and a lot of parcels, an alternative is that there would be more supply-side competition for housing and then better-quality housing would be more affordable overall. Do you see factors preventing this outcome from being likely?
    - danieltillett 8y ago
      Yes once you unblocked the planning process then you would get a lot of building since you would open up a lot of land that right now can’t be developed due to local opposition. It would also lower the barriers to entry for new developers as more would start to look outside their immediate area where they have their corrupt local government connections. The end result is everyone should win - communities get the development that want, landowners get a higher price, and the honest developers can compete with the corrupt. The only losers are the corrupt.

schoen 8y ago

Thanks for the interesting response! I wonder how many developers currently think this way (in terms of explicitly specified sets of features rather than specific sites). And, what's more, how eager would they be to be seen to be thinking this way in a public bid? One thing that comes to mind is that some developers might not want to publicly specify some of the features that actually matter to them, for example things about neighborhood incomes, crime rates, homelessness, or other neighborhood demographics. Still, developers may feel that these things will significantly affect the suitability of a site to a profitable project, but not want to deal with the public relations aspects of spelling out their reasoning. I'm not sure how strong an argument that is against your proposal, but maybe developers would consider it pretty fundamental. Edit: Also, it's amusing to think about people trying to quantify aesthetic fit. "We want to build this development in a place that McMansion Hell thinks is overall pretty tacky, but not super tacky." "We want to build this development in a place with an average of 12 architectural classiness points, but in any case not more than 17 classiness points."

danieltillett 8y ago
All those other considerations you mention will play a role, but they will affect the final sale price and hence the undeveloped land value. Developers will be worried about the spread between site acquisition costs (land + development bid cost) and final sale price. Locations with problems will have lower undeveloped land values. In practice this proposal would work best when land owners and communities work together to put together potential sites that meet developers needs. I think developers will hate this idea because instead of the whole surplus going to them and their corrupt buddies in government, it will have to be shared with the local community. Since the bid will be public there is no way to payoff someone in the planning department to get approval for your development. Of course from my perspective this is a feature not a bug.
- schoen 8y ago
  > I think developers will hate this idea because instead of the whole surplus going to them and their corrupt buddies in government, it will have to be shared with the local community. I would think if there were a lot of developers and a lot of parcels, an alternative is that there would be more supply-side competition for housing and then better-quality housing would be more affordable overall. Do you see factors preventing this outcome from being likely?
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    Yes once you unblocked the planning process then you would get a lot of building since you would open up a lot of land that right now can’t be developed due to local opposition. It would also lower the barriers to entry for new developers as more would start to look outside their immediate area where they have their corrupt local government connections. The end result is everyone should win - communities get the development that want, landowners get a higher price, and the honest developers can compete with the corrupt. The only losers are the corrupt.