5 ms·

How is the desirability of homes in single family neighbourhoods inconsistent with the fact that they tend towards creating haves and have-nots in the market fo

by s_Hogg 7y ago

How is the desirability of homes in single family neighbourhoods inconsistent with the fact that they tend towards creating haves and have-nots in the market for housing?

kryogen1c 7y ago
The definition of a market is haves and have-nots. Saying that building expensive things is segragation is thinly veiled strict socialism. What's the alternative, everyone is forced to live in the same housing? You can't force cheap apartments in nice neighborhoods, those neighborhoods will become not nice. Thats how rent control works
- s_Hogg 7y ago
  I accept that, but policy seems to enforce single family home neighbourhoods in many places. This exacerbates the problem of haves and have-nots in the housing market. I'm not in the "ban SFH neighbourhoods" camp, but I think we shouldn't have as much of a problem with them becoming denser. Particularly not when the people already living there tend to have the chance to be well-compensated by selling to developers if they want. This doesn't mean developers should be allowed to let rip either - as one of the other posts says, increased density leads to increased demand for other infrastructure as well. Basically neither Manhattan nor Houston are really ideal states in my mind. There should be a way to live in the burbs if you want to do that, but I don't think public policy should be vigorously defending the people who do that regardless of obvious social and economic costs.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    > Particularly not when the people already living there tend to have the chance to be well-compensated by selling to developers if they want. the developers have a significant amount of leverage in this situation. if they can build one large apartment building in a low-density sfh neighborhood, they can take a significant chunk of value off all the neighboring homes. if they can secure land to build several large buildings, they can seriously devalue these homes. when they start looking to buy property for the nth building, the homeowner isn't going to get anything close to the original value. as a society, we should never have allowed this situation to happen in the first place, but now that we have, it's not going to be easy to solve. until you get to pretty high percentiles of wealth, homes tend to be a large fraction of a family's net worth. to suddenly remove the zoning would be a pretty big hit for these people; a lot of them could get upside-down on their mortgages.
    - spoonie 7y ago
      I get that those opposed to density claim this is one of the reasons they oppose it, but is there any evidence of it? Usually an increase in density in an area will increase land values rather then depress them.
- spoonie 7y ago
  I should be able to build whatever I want on my private property. Whether it’s a house or an apartment building.
  - caymanjim 7y ago
    Are you also going to build the infrastructure to support your apartment building in a neighborhood of single-family homes? Are you going widen the streets, create parking, improve sewer and water lines, add traffic lights, build larger parks, route mass transit, hire more school bus drivers, hire more police? Urban planning and zoning exist for a reason.
    - spoonie 7y ago
      Yes in Toronto these are called Development Charges and are charged to the buyer/builder proportional to what they are building.
  - pbourke 7y ago
    And I assume that you’d be fine with your neighbour doing the same, irrespective of the impact on the value and enjoyment of your property?
    - spoonie 7y ago
      If I'm happy to have gains when I do nothing but my neighbours improve their properties, then I’m also happy to risk losses when I do nothing but my neighbours make changes.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  > The definition of a market is haves and have-nots. Sure, but we're talking about government force, not the market. It's one thing if the market creates SFH-only neighborhoods, but why should the government be enforcing that as law?
PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
They did not CREATE haves and have-nots. They are simply a marker of them. Instead of depriving everyone of houses, we should be addressing any injustices that prevent people from acquiring them.

by s_Hogg 7y ago

How is the desirability of homes in single family neighbourhoods inconsistent with the fact that they tend towards creating haves and have-nots in the market for housing?

kryogen1c 7y ago

The definition of a market is haves and have-nots. Saying that building expensive things is segragation is thinly veiled strict socialism. What's the alternative, everyone is forced to live in the same housing? You can't force cheap apartments in nice neighborhoods, those neighborhoods will become not nice. Thats how rent control works

s_Hogg 7y ago
I accept that, but policy seems to enforce single family home neighbourhoods in many places. This exacerbates the problem of haves and have-nots in the housing market. I'm not in the "ban SFH neighbourhoods" camp, but I think we shouldn't have as much of a problem with them becoming denser. Particularly not when the people already living there tend to have the chance to be well-compensated by selling to developers if they want. This doesn't mean developers should be allowed to let rip either - as one of the other posts says, increased density leads to increased demand for other infrastructure as well. Basically neither Manhattan nor Houston are really ideal states in my mind. There should be a way to live in the burbs if you want to do that, but I don't think public policy should be vigorously defending the people who do that regardless of obvious social and economic costs.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  > Particularly not when the people already living there tend to have the chance to be well-compensated by selling to developers if they want. the developers have a significant amount of leverage in this situation. if they can build one large apartment building in a low-density sfh neighborhood, they can take a significant chunk of value off all the neighboring homes. if they can secure land to build several large buildings, they can seriously devalue these homes. when they start looking to buy property for the nth building, the homeowner isn't going to get anything close to the original value. as a society, we should never have allowed this situation to happen in the first place, but now that we have, it's not going to be easy to solve. until you get to pretty high percentiles of wealth, homes tend to be a large fraction of a family's net worth. to suddenly remove the zoning would be a pretty big hit for these people; a lot of them could get upside-down on their mortgages.
  - spoonie 7y ago
    I get that those opposed to density claim this is one of the reasons they oppose it, but is there any evidence of it? Usually an increase in density in an area will increase land values rather then depress them.
spoonie 7y ago
I should be able to build whatever I want on my private property. Whether it’s a house or an apartment building.
- caymanjim 7y ago
  Are you also going to build the infrastructure to support your apartment building in a neighborhood of single-family homes? Are you going widen the streets, create parking, improve sewer and water lines, add traffic lights, build larger parks, route mass transit, hire more school bus drivers, hire more police? Urban planning and zoning exist for a reason.
  - spoonie 7y ago
    Yes in Toronto these are called Development Charges and are charged to the buyer/builder proportional to what they are building.
- pbourke 7y ago
  And I assume that you’d be fine with your neighbour doing the same, irrespective of the impact on the value and enjoyment of your property?
  - spoonie 7y ago
    If I'm happy to have gains when I do nothing but my neighbours improve their properties, then I’m also happy to risk losses when I do nothing but my neighbours make changes.
TulliusCicero 7y ago
> The definition of a market is haves and have-nots. Sure, but we're talking about government force, not the market. It's one thing if the market creates SFH-only neighborhoods, but why should the government be enforcing that as law?

PunksATawnyFill 7y ago

They did not CREATE haves and have-nots. They are simply a marker of them. Instead of depriving everyone of houses, we should be addressing any injustices that prevent people from acquiring them.