4 ms·

This sort of thing happens when people try to build large amounts of housing in the US pretty much anywhere. It's a strategic ploy to drive up housing prices, e

This sort of thing happens when people try to build large amounts of housing in the US pretty much anywhere. It's a strategic ploy to drive up housing prices, enriching landlords and homeowners at the expense of renters and young people.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
Uhhh, 'more homes' is absolutely the last thing any landlords want as it does the exact opposite of 'driving up home prices'. Especially given this is a new development, there's no erstwhile 'home prices' to drive up ...
- dvdhnt 8y ago
  The “city” would be carved out of four other cities mentioned in the article. Not only would these new developments compete with those existing areas, it would compete with any planned developments, or potential developments that opponents would prefer to build in the described “city” of only they could acquire the land. Though, I think the grandparent comment meant that blocking new home construction is a ploy to increase home prices and harm renters and the young.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    In absolute terms there would almost assuredly be more homes than less in that scenario - thereby putting downward pressure on housing costs, not upward. This is Economics. Moreover - there is no real competition for land (specific plots and waterside aside). Even in Vermont's largest urban area (Burlington) you can literally go one kilometre in any direction and find tons of open space, even you go a few more, it's empty. Developers can go almost anywhere - if one spot taken, you can literally walk in almost any direction and find suitable land. Which is at least partly why places like Vermont have average home prices of $192K and California (mostly urban) has average home prices of nearly double that. [1][2] In light of the basic economics here, the parent commenter has the onus to prove his more cynical position that this is 'all some kind of evil rent ploy'. Because it's not, and if it were, it would be the dumbest ploy ever, because there's no surplus control or surplus capture. People can build next door to move outside of the supposed economic control. [1] https://www.zillow.com/vt/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/vt/home-values/ [2] https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article13255952.html https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article132559...
nostrademons 8y ago
I don't think it's conscious ploy by people to drive up housing prices - most of the people who tend to object the most are those who have lived in an area their whole life and intend to live there until they die, and so they won't realize any house price appreciation within their lifetime. Rather, I think they actually mean what they say: they will miss the open wilderness and historic character of the area if it's developed into a new-age urban development. The reason that such trifling (to outsiders) concerns can actually block housing developments is because there's a strong selection bias in land-use planning. Current residents get a vote, while future residents get no vote. Moreover, current residents often have strong relationships and lots of friends within the area, so they may get more than one vote. So democratically, the loss of undeveloped wilderness in some other area of your town counts more than the gain to a non-resident of having a place to live.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Uhhh, 'more homes' is absolutely the last thing any landlords want as it does the exact opposite of 'driving up home prices'. Especially given this is a new development, there's no erstwhile 'home prices' to drive up ...

dvdhnt 8y ago
The “city” would be carved out of four other cities mentioned in the article. Not only would these new developments compete with those existing areas, it would compete with any planned developments, or potential developments that opponents would prefer to build in the described “city” of only they could acquire the land. Though, I think the grandparent comment meant that blocking new home construction is a ploy to increase home prices and harm renters and the young.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  In absolute terms there would almost assuredly be more homes than less in that scenario - thereby putting downward pressure on housing costs, not upward. This is Economics. Moreover - there is no real competition for land (specific plots and waterside aside). Even in Vermont's largest urban area (Burlington) you can literally go one kilometre in any direction and find tons of open space, even you go a few more, it's empty. Developers can go almost anywhere - if one spot taken, you can literally walk in almost any direction and find suitable land. Which is at least partly why places like Vermont have average home prices of $192K and California (mostly urban) has average home prices of nearly double that. [1][2] In light of the basic economics here, the parent commenter has the onus to prove his more cynical position that this is 'all some kind of evil rent ploy'. Because it's not, and if it were, it would be the dumbest ploy ever, because there's no surplus control or surplus capture. People can build next door to move outside of the supposed economic control. [1] https://www.zillow.com/vt/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/vt/home-values/ [2] https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article13255952.html https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article132559...

nostrademons 8y ago

I don't think it's conscious ploy by people to drive up housing prices - most of the people who tend to object the most are those who have lived in an area their whole life and intend to live there until they die, and so they won't realize any house price appreciation within their lifetime. Rather, I think they actually mean what they say: they will miss the open wilderness and historic character of the area if it's developed into a new-age urban development. The reason that such trifling (to outsiders) concerns can actually block housing developments is because there's a strong selection bias in land-use planning. Current residents get a vote, while future residents get no vote. Moreover, current residents often have strong relationships and lots of friends within the area, so they may get more than one vote. So democratically, the loss of undeveloped wilderness in some other area of your town counts more than the gain to a non-resident of having a place to live.