7 ms·

Home ownership generally slows growth for everything else around that area. Every home owner has this "not in my backyard" mentality and will veto any possible

Home ownership generally slows growth for everything else around that area. Every home owner has this "not in my backyard" mentality and will veto any possible developments in their area.

riantogo 7y ago
You know why, right?
- christiansakai 7y ago
  Yeah. I will do the same thing.
- Fauntleroy 7y ago
  Yeah, we know why. Maybe a basic necessity like housing shouldn't be treated like the damn stock market.
  - riantogo 7y ago
    That is correct. So people who got into the "stock market" are being protective about their investment. Unless there is a path to offer them relief they will always vote against diluting their hard earned money. Most of the people who didn't get in often approach the problem as, "yeah, screw them, make it good for me", and then act surprised as to why they don't get the votes. But it seems like you understand the issue.
    - istjohn 7y ago
      And the people who did get in often approach the problem as, "yeah, screw them, I got mine." So we have two groups who have countervailing interests. But of course the property owners have more money--and also time, education, social capital, and so on--so they are the ones who usually win this fight.
      - Baeocystin 7y ago
        > "yeah, screw them, I got mine." A more charitable interpretation is that it takes a lifetime of wealth accumulation to be able to buy a home in today's California, and it is not unreasonable to be concerned about the potential of losing your life's single largest investment. Casting them as a cartoon villains solves nothing.
        throwaway34241 7y ago
        Is it even primarily an economic self interest thing? If they intend to continue living in their current neighborhood it would be hard to realize that home value, although I'm sure there's some people that plan to sell the house and retire out of state. Increasing density might not even necessarily be bad for property prices (for people who want to sell) since the land might be redeveloped into more than one unit. I'm sure the economic angle is part of it, but I don't have a good feel for how big a factor it is compared to disliking traffic / change in "neighborhood character" etc.
        Baeocystin 7y ago
        I'm sure you're right, in that there are multiple reasons all mashed together. A family that buys in Neighborhood X likely selected that neighborhood because they liked it as it is, so I think it's easy to see why homeowners would be resistant to change, economic or not. My gut tells me a lot of it is genuinely about the money, though. Of the people I know, most have to spend >50% of their income per month just to maintain a roof over my head. And these are working-professional families, well above median state incomes. That kind of pressure, even under the guise of paying a mortgage instead of renting, is a real stressor.
- stale2002 7y ago
  Of course I know why. People don't like competition. Lower rents, and having more affordable housing is obviously something that a person who profits from higher rents, would want to prevent.
intopieces 7y ago
If that’s the case - which I don’t doubt - why are we encouraging home ownership at all? One of the key metrics the article presents is the drop in home ownership. Wouldn’t encouraging renters be a potential solution?
- int_19h 7y ago
  Because home ownership means greater economic stability for the individual or family owning it, and "we" consists of individuals and families?
  - intopieces 7y ago
    Economic stability is a necessity for home ownership and is often exhibited by home owners, but home ownership is not a cause nor prerequisite for economic stability. The relationship between the two was muddled in the run up to the last financial crisis- that is, lenders were encouraged to lend to more people to buy houses because it was correlated with economic stability. This is a little like buying someone expensive shoes to make them a better basketball player.
    - int_19h 7y ago
      I wrote "greater economic stability", not "a prerequisite for economic stability". Would anybody seriously argue that not having to pay rent, and not facing with the possibility of eventually getting kicked out (even with all the protections, this can happen if the owner is taking the property off the market altogether), does not translate to more stability.
      - intopieces 7y ago
        >Would anybody seriously argue that not having to pay rent, and not facing with the possibility of eventually getting kicked out [...] does not translate to more stability[?] Paul Krugman does. [0] Subsidies to home ownership increased economic volatility (people spend more when their house is worth more, spend less when its value decreases); weakened financial services; and made labour markets tend to become more rigid. [1] [0]https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/opinion/23krugman.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/opinion/23krugman.html [1]https://www.economist.com/briefing/2009/04/16/shelter-or-burden https://www.economist.com/briefing/2009/04/16/shelter-or-bur...

Home ownership generally slows growth for everything else around that area. Every home owner has this "not in my backyard" mentality and will veto any possible developments in their area.

riantogo 7y ago

You know why, right?

christiansakai 7y ago
Yeah. I will do the same thing.
Fauntleroy 7y ago
Yeah, we know why. Maybe a basic necessity like housing shouldn't be treated like the damn stock market.
- riantogo 7y ago
  That is correct. So people who got into the "stock market" are being protective about their investment. Unless there is a path to offer them relief they will always vote against diluting their hard earned money. Most of the people who didn't get in often approach the problem as, "yeah, screw them, make it good for me", and then act surprised as to why they don't get the votes. But it seems like you understand the issue.
  - istjohn 7y ago
    And the people who did get in often approach the problem as, "yeah, screw them, I got mine." So we have two groups who have countervailing interests. But of course the property owners have more money--and also time, education, social capital, and so on--so they are the ones who usually win this fight.
    - Baeocystin 7y ago
      > "yeah, screw them, I got mine." A more charitable interpretation is that it takes a lifetime of wealth accumulation to be able to buy a home in today's California, and it is not unreasonable to be concerned about the potential of losing your life's single largest investment. Casting them as a cartoon villains solves nothing.
      - throwaway34241 7y ago
        Is it even primarily an economic self interest thing? If they intend to continue living in their current neighborhood it would be hard to realize that home value, although I'm sure there's some people that plan to sell the house and retire out of state. Increasing density might not even necessarily be bad for property prices (for people who want to sell) since the land might be redeveloped into more than one unit. I'm sure the economic angle is part of it, but I don't have a good feel for how big a factor it is compared to disliking traffic / change in "neighborhood character" etc.
        Baeocystin 7y ago
        I'm sure you're right, in that there are multiple reasons all mashed together. A family that buys in Neighborhood X likely selected that neighborhood because they liked it as it is, so I think it's easy to see why homeowners would be resistant to change, economic or not. My gut tells me a lot of it is genuinely about the money, though. Of the people I know, most have to spend >50% of their income per month just to maintain a roof over my head. And these are working-professional families, well above median state incomes. That kind of pressure, even under the guise of paying a mortgage instead of renting, is a real stressor.
stale2002 7y ago
Of course I know why. People don't like competition. Lower rents, and having more affordable housing is obviously something that a person who profits from higher rents, would want to prevent.

intopieces 7y ago

If that’s the case - which I don’t doubt - why are we encouraging home ownership at all? One of the key metrics the article presents is the drop in home ownership. Wouldn’t encouraging renters be a potential solution?

int_19h 7y ago
Because home ownership means greater economic stability for the individual or family owning it, and "we" consists of individuals and families?
- intopieces 7y ago
  Economic stability is a necessity for home ownership and is often exhibited by home owners, but home ownership is not a cause nor prerequisite for economic stability. The relationship between the two was muddled in the run up to the last financial crisis- that is, lenders were encouraged to lend to more people to buy houses because it was correlated with economic stability. This is a little like buying someone expensive shoes to make them a better basketball player.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    I wrote "greater economic stability", not "a prerequisite for economic stability". Would anybody seriously argue that not having to pay rent, and not facing with the possibility of eventually getting kicked out (even with all the protections, this can happen if the owner is taking the property off the market altogether), does not translate to more stability.
    - intopieces 7y ago
      >Would anybody seriously argue that not having to pay rent, and not facing with the possibility of eventually getting kicked out [...] does not translate to more stability[?] Paul Krugman does. [0] Subsidies to home ownership increased economic volatility (people spend more when their house is worth more, spend less when its value decreases); weakened financial services; and made labour markets tend to become more rigid. [1] [0]https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/opinion/23krugman.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/opinion/23krugman.html [1]https://www.economist.com/briefing/2009/04/16/shelter-or-burden https://www.economist.com/briefing/2009/04/16/shelter-or-bur...