6 ms·

> Do you not want a large, detached house? :) I think part of it has to do with the fact that that is what people want If people truly wanted this, we wouldn't

> Do you not want a large, detached house? :) I think part of it has to do with the fact that that is what people want If people truly wanted this, we wouldn't need a large zoning law apparatus to legally enforce it, now would we? Historically these laws came about due to White Flight and wanting to keep the "other" people out. My hypothesis is these laws persist due to effectively creating legally enforced housing cartel, pushing up house prices. Throw in some rent control to turn some poor folks against new housing, and you've got a recipe for ever increasing house prices, falling fertility rates, and the squeezing of the middle class.

tudelo 8y ago
Are you referring to housing demand in and around high population areas? Well, I'm not making a claim people don't want to live close to these areas, but as someone who isn't buying a million dollar house, I don't even consider it as an option.
- Zach_the_Lizard 8y ago
  It's all over. Memphis to Miami, New York to Nevada, San Francisco to Syracuse. The historical ratio of house price to income that was considered affordable was about 2.6. If you earn $100k, you should spend $260k at most on your house under this rule. Nowadays very few metros have median house prices at a level where the median household income would qualify, using that 2.6 ratio. Almost all of the cities with cost levels at that ratio or better are Rust Belt cities, and even many of them are right at the threshold. Check out the full list: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/where-the-house-price-to-income-ratio-is-most-out-of-whack/561404/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/where-the-house-price... Obviously interest rates, tax policy, etc. can change the monthly expense equation, so what may have been too expensive in the past might be more affordable now with lower interest rates. However, even with a reduced cost to finance, there are still hefty down payments that need to be saved up for which are cost prohibitive. And higher property values need to pay higher property taxes. Maybe even "mansion" taxes in a few places.
Spivak 8y ago
People absolutely want large detached houses, but housing developers want to build densely packed multi-family housing because they're more profitable. Here's the problem: - Start with a nice, quiet, picturesque suburban neighborhood. - Naturally people want to move into this neighborhood because it's so nice and want it to be affordable so, absent zoning, developers build apartments and condos to fill the need. - Then all the people move in and the neighborhood slowly learns that the reason it was actually nice and picturesque was the low density and high buy-in. - Property values start going down, along with tax revenue, the schools decline, $/student plummets, and all the people with the means move somewhere else. Without at least some laws it's incredibly difficult to break this cycle.
- Retric 8y ago
  You have it backwards, increased density results in higher prices. However, there are multiple cycles going on. If you build a development you end up with a lot of people of similar means all buying homes. But, over time things change as people get fired / retire / inherent homes etc you revert to the mean over time. On top of that as homes age and become less desirable you get massive downward pressure on property values over time. In the other direction you have artificial scarcity and sometimes increasing population propping up home values.
  - Retric 8y ago
    PS: To thous who disagree, I will point out Manhattan as a classic case of high density and high cost. Feel free to pick some real counter examples.
    - rcpt 8y ago
      It's expensive in Manhattan but it's affordable nearby. It's still possible to buy an apartment in Jackson Heights for $200k and take the F train to work. In the Bay Area it's expensive near job centers but it's still expensive 40 miles away. The sprawling mess is too low density to sensibly cover with trains so poor people end up with insane highway commutes.
graeme 8y ago
Is white flight really the cause of zoning laws? We have very similar laws in Canada, but they happened at a time when downtowns were almost entirely white. My suspicion is that car based planning is the cause.
cjf4 8y ago
At least in my corner of the US, a huge majority of prospective home owners would consider a non detached house to be markedly less desirable.
toasterlovin 8y ago
FWIW, I have three kids and we very much appreciate having a detached house and large yard.
- Zach_the_Lizard 8y ago
  I'm glad you enjoy your detached house and large yard. I truly do. So long as you don't try to use zoning laws to make that the only game in town, I think we'll get along quite well.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    The zoning laws are not there because people need to be forced into detached single family homes. On the contrary, I think you would be hard pressed to find many families with 2+ children who don't want to live in detached single family homes. Zoning laws exist because people don't just live in houses, they also live in neighborhoods. And when they buy into a neighborhood, they want the neighborhood to generally maintain it's character (since that's part of what attracted them to the neighborhood in the first place). In fact, neighborhood character is so valuable to many people that they will opt into restrictions (CC&Rs) above and beyond what is required by law in order to achieve an even more uniform character in their neighborhood. I tend to have a more libertarian bent, personally, when it comes to people building what they want on their land, but zoning laws are not about oppression of private property owners. You see them as a bug, but many people see them as a feature.
kodablah 8y ago
> If people truly wanted this, we wouldn't need a large zoning law apparatus to legally enforce it, now would we? No. You are confusing residents with all people. Left to their own economic devices, a company will get what it wants before a person in most cases. How many companies want large, detached houses? If they truly did then yes, we wouldn't need zoning laws.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Also, with no zoning at all, you can end up with all kinds of scenarios like your neighbor selling to someone who wants to open a nightclub or something, even if nobody else in the neighborhood would want that.
emodendroket 8y ago
That doesn't make a lot of sense. If everyone hated the laws so much they could presumably advocate against them

tudelo 8y ago

Are you referring to housing demand in and around high population areas? Well, I'm not making a claim people don't want to live close to these areas, but as someone who isn't buying a million dollar house, I don't even consider it as an option.

Zach_the_Lizard 8y ago
It's all over. Memphis to Miami, New York to Nevada, San Francisco to Syracuse. The historical ratio of house price to income that was considered affordable was about 2.6. If you earn $100k, you should spend $260k at most on your house under this rule. Nowadays very few metros have median house prices at a level where the median household income would qualify, using that 2.6 ratio. Almost all of the cities with cost levels at that ratio or better are Rust Belt cities, and even many of them are right at the threshold. Check out the full list: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/where-the-house-price-to-income-ratio-is-most-out-of-whack/561404/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/where-the-house-price... Obviously interest rates, tax policy, etc. can change the monthly expense equation, so what may have been too expensive in the past might be more affordable now with lower interest rates. However, even with a reduced cost to finance, there are still hefty down payments that need to be saved up for which are cost prohibitive. And higher property values need to pay higher property taxes. Maybe even "mansion" taxes in a few places.

Spivak 8y ago

People absolutely want large detached houses, but housing developers want to build densely packed multi-family housing because they're more profitable. Here's the problem: - Start with a nice, quiet, picturesque suburban neighborhood. - Naturally people want to move into this neighborhood because it's so nice and want it to be affordable so, absent zoning, developers build apartments and condos to fill the need. - Then all the people move in and the neighborhood slowly learns that the reason it was actually nice and picturesque was the low density and high buy-in. - Property values start going down, along with tax revenue, the schools decline, $/student plummets, and all the people with the means move somewhere else. Without at least some laws it's incredibly difficult to break this cycle.

Retric 8y ago
You have it backwards, increased density results in higher prices. However, there are multiple cycles going on. If you build a development you end up with a lot of people of similar means all buying homes. But, over time things change as people get fired / retire / inherent homes etc you revert to the mean over time. On top of that as homes age and become less desirable you get massive downward pressure on property values over time. In the other direction you have artificial scarcity and sometimes increasing population propping up home values.
- Retric 8y ago
  PS: To thous who disagree, I will point out Manhattan as a classic case of high density and high cost. Feel free to pick some real counter examples.
  - rcpt 8y ago
    It's expensive in Manhattan but it's affordable nearby. It's still possible to buy an apartment in Jackson Heights for $200k and take the F train to work. In the Bay Area it's expensive near job centers but it's still expensive 40 miles away. The sprawling mess is too low density to sensibly cover with trains so poor people end up with insane highway commutes.

graeme 8y ago

Is white flight really the cause of zoning laws? We have very similar laws in Canada, but they happened at a time when downtowns were almost entirely white. My suspicion is that car based planning is the cause.

cjf4 8y ago

At least in my corner of the US, a huge majority of prospective home owners would consider a non detached house to be markedly less desirable.

toasterlovin 8y ago

FWIW, I have three kids and we very much appreciate having a detached house and large yard.

Zach_the_Lizard 8y ago
I'm glad you enjoy your detached house and large yard. I truly do. So long as you don't try to use zoning laws to make that the only game in town, I think we'll get along quite well.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  The zoning laws are not there because people need to be forced into detached single family homes. On the contrary, I think you would be hard pressed to find many families with 2+ children who don't want to live in detached single family homes. Zoning laws exist because people don't just live in houses, they also live in neighborhoods. And when they buy into a neighborhood, they want the neighborhood to generally maintain it's character (since that's part of what attracted them to the neighborhood in the first place). In fact, neighborhood character is so valuable to many people that they will opt into restrictions (CC&Rs) above and beyond what is required by law in order to achieve an even more uniform character in their neighborhood. I tend to have a more libertarian bent, personally, when it comes to people building what they want on their land, but zoning laws are not about oppression of private property owners. You see them as a bug, but many people see them as a feature.

kodablah 8y ago

> If people truly wanted this, we wouldn't need a large zoning law apparatus to legally enforce it, now would we? No. You are confusing residents with all people. Left to their own economic devices, a company will get what it wants before a person in most cases. How many companies want large, detached houses? If they truly did then yes, we wouldn't need zoning laws.

emodendroket 8y ago
Also, with no zoning at all, you can end up with all kinds of scenarios like your neighbor selling to someone who wants to open a nightclub or something, even if nobody else in the neighborhood would want that.

emodendroket 8y ago

That doesn't make a lot of sense. If everyone hated the laws so much they could presumably advocate against them