4 ms·

I guess I am unsure of the rules, but I thought the way that the nimbyism mechanism worked to reduce supply is by adding restrictions on density (can't build ho

I guess I am unsure of the rules, but I thought the way that the nimbyism mechanism worked to reduce supply is by adding restrictions on density (can't build houses that are very tall) and cost (requiring lots of permits and old houses to look the same and so forth). It seems that nimbyism would increase the cost of building and rebuilding at about the same rate. (I don't see much of a difference between the two in the middle of a big city). So if San Francisco were allowed to build large sky scrapers like NYC, in theory, we would see the housing prices fall. NYC also has housing problems of course. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-percent-of-manhattans-buildings-could-not-be-built-today.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-...

Gibbon1 8y ago
Personally I think developers want it both ways, don't want to be bothered with building regulations and planning. And also don't want to have to factor in their share of the transportation and infrastructure costs. So they oppose both and then bitch about the result. Not sympathetic. NYC is also relying on long term preexisting infrastructure that hasn't been upgraded to meet demand. NYC also has the problem that the replacement tunnels to NJ have been canceled by Gov Christie in 2009 and by Trump in 2016. When I talk about the transportation stuff taking a long time I'm serious. The central subway was in early planning stages in the late 90's, ground broken 10 years later.