7 ms·

This story reminds me of when I was a kid and the school bus would come. Often there were no seats because every seat was taken--one kid each. There was plenty

by Lendal 7y ago

This story reminds me of when I was a kid and the school bus would come. Often there were no seats because every seat was taken--one kid each. There was plenty of room there, but the kids who got on the bus first would ban together to prevent new kids from sitting. Today these kids have grown up and own homes in the suburbs. New kids need to move in, but the kids who got there first refuse to let them build. That's what this story is about.

xamuel 7y ago
That analogy isn't exactly accurate. To make it accurate, the kids sitting in the current seats would have to have paid a significant amount to purchase those seats. Also, throw in some kids who, for neurological reasons, become extremely distressed if they're forced to sit next to very loud kids. Because of this, they (or their parents) made a big sacrifice to secure single seats for them at great expense.
- collias 7y ago
  You're right, and I feel like this is something that is frequently either downplayed or willfully ignored. If I live in California where home prices are sky-high, and I've saved up for nearly a decade for a house, why would I be willing to allow legislation that would likely devalue my biggest asset (by far) that I saved and sacrificed so diligently for? This is a legitimate question, not trying to be a jerk. I'm genuinely curious what the argument against this is.
  - lthornberry 7y ago
    Increased development wouldn't necessarily devalue you asset, particularly if it's a single family house or a condo in a relatively low-density development. Right now, the high cost of housing in the Bay Area is largely due to a couple of factors: 1 - high cost of labor. Rezoning won't change that. 2 - restrictions on right to build. Rezoning will reduce this. 3 - high cost of land. Rezoning will increase this, by making it possible to build more units of housing on a given area of land. For most current homeowners, it's likely that 3 will outweigh 2. Developers will buy up some portion of single family housing stock (and low-density multifamily stock) to rebuild the lots with denser housing. That process will both increase demand and reduce supply of those types of housing, resulting in price increases. At the same time, the average unit of housing will cost less, because there will be many more condos/apartments available. Owners of high-density condos would be the most vulnerable to seeing their asset values decrease. However, building big condo buildings is still going to be a complicated endeavor, so price adjustments will happen slowly over time. No one's going to get hosed, although their asset prices might go up more slowly over time than otherwise, or even be eroded by inflation in the long term. At the same time, many of those condo owners will still come out ahead. They may be able to upgrade to a nicer condo than they otherwise could have afforded. They may also benefit from the second-order effects of lower average housing prices, in the form of reduced costs for non-housing items. If they run a business, it will be easier for them to attract and retain workers. Schools and other public services will also be better able to attract and retain quality staff, at a lower wage bill. Etc.
    - collias 7y ago
      This is the type of detailed reply that I come here for, and definitely has reframed how I think about this situation. Thank you!
  - joefkelley 7y ago
    The tough thing is of course you are right. It's obviously in your best interest to vote against new housing if you own a house. But it's not in society's best interest.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      But it's really not. Homelessness and destitution also reduce property value. Lots of people leaving California because it's so awful.
    - kofejnik 7y ago
      > But it's not in society's best interest. 1. why are you so sure? What makes you an authority on the whole society's interests? 2. even if so, are you saying that collective interests trump individual rights? This is socialism 101. Government will decide who should live (and work) where, and who should own what.
      - joefkelley 7y ago
        1. I am not sure. This is all just my layman's interpretation. I'll admit I could be very wrong and have no expertise. I'm just discussing. 2. No, in general I believe there's a difficult balance to be struck between individual rights and collective interests. I tend to lean more toward individual rights actually. I would love it if local governments would stop restricting the rights of local developers and allow the free market to determine what is built where more often.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > If I live in California where home prices are sky-high, and I've saved up for nearly a decade for a house, why would I be willing to allow legislation that would likely devalue my biggest asset (by far) that I saved and sacrificed so diligently for? Rezoning would not devalue your house. You'd get more money for it in the long run. Better yet, you'd be able to instantly become a landlord (convert your house into a plex) and move somewhere else that satisfied your desire for a single-family home. Or you'd be able to market to a developer. Plus, if you just kept living in your house, the value would go up anyway, as it always does.
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    Same reason people are willing to argue for any tax raises that will cost them money? Because they think the value of a functioning society is greater than the value of the personal assets they will lose.
i_am_nomad 7y ago
Except the school bus is a public good. Are you saying that we should reframe housing as a public good as well and provide it as such?
- nostrademons 7y ago
  There's no need to assume this. Even if you treat land & housing as a private good, you're entitled to decide what you do with your own land. You're not entitled to decide what other people do with their land. Zoning laws, development restrictions, and HOAs violate this principle - they give existing homeowners a collective power to decide what other homeowners can do with their private property. This makes housing a weird sort of public/private hybrid where you have the private right to protect yourself from change but also the public right to prevent change within your neighborhood, which biases everything towards the status quo. (Importantly, no such restriction exists on population: within the U.S. at least, nobody has the right to prevent their neighbors or fellow citizens from having kids, while they do have the right to prevent their neighbors from building more housing units. There's an inevitable mismatch between reality here...)
  - jbattle 7y ago
    You are oversimplifying. Are you OK with someone opening hog farms all around your house? Setting up fracking rigs? Building a factory and running heavy industry?
    - jschwartzi 7y ago
      And you're misrepresenting what the OP is saying. Someone opposed to HOA and zoning isn't saying that it should be okay to locate a chemical plant next door to a preschool. It's more that we as a society shouldn't let people with entrenched interests in the status quo dictate that we stay with the status quo even when it's clear how awful the status quo is. To wit if I want to raise chickens or garden in my suburban backyard that should be my right as long as the chickens don't get out or cause a ruckus. And if the chickens do cause a problem my neighbors' should be limited to seeking legal remedies and not preventing everyone from raising chickens in the future, as most chicken owners are generally responsible. That's very different from running a fracking rig and is much more like the things an HOA prevents you from doing.
riazrizvi 7y ago
I'm a renter but please, this is about families protecting the value of the primary asset that they hope to live on in retirement. Home assets don't skyrocket in value when there is lots of supply. If we frame this thing as reasonable-needs-of-renters vs unreasonable-wants-of-homeowners, then everyone is going to remain at loggerheads.
- starpilot 7y ago
  Since when is homeownership a requirement for retirement savings? What about IRA's, 401ks? That they chose to stake so much on a more volatile asset is not the fault of the people around them. Should cities sacrifice their urban well-being, pushing people out on the streets and guaranteeing lower-income people can never live there, for the sake of some elderly residents who put their eggs in one basket?
  - bbarn 7y ago
    Investment in the market is incredibly volatile compared to real estate. That's why it's called "real" estate.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      No, it's not. In 2008 we saw that that is really not the case. Housing is awful because it's relatively difficult to find an owner and transaction fees are extremely high.
    - throwaway100773 7y ago
      You think that because there isn’t a ticker to tell you your home price every moment from 930-4pm on business days.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  The house that the owner lives in is not an asset. It's a durable consumer good. Wanting your home to appreciate in value forever is like expecting your 20-year-old car to sell for more than its sticker price. It really only works for art installations, created by a collaboration of architect, engineer, and builder, with some living space inside. Framed in these terms, most families do not have any significant assets, and a hefty chunk of their resources dedicated to maintaining their gigantic shelter-providing consumer appliance.

by Lendal 7y ago

xamuel 7y ago

That analogy isn't exactly accurate. To make it accurate, the kids sitting in the current seats would have to have paid a significant amount to purchase those seats. Also, throw in some kids who, for neurological reasons, become extremely distressed if they're forced to sit next to very loud kids. Because of this, they (or their parents) made a big sacrifice to secure single seats for them at great expense.

collias 7y ago
You're right, and I feel like this is something that is frequently either downplayed or willfully ignored. If I live in California where home prices are sky-high, and I've saved up for nearly a decade for a house, why would I be willing to allow legislation that would likely devalue my biggest asset (by far) that I saved and sacrificed so diligently for? This is a legitimate question, not trying to be a jerk. I'm genuinely curious what the argument against this is.
- lthornberry 7y ago
  Increased development wouldn't necessarily devalue you asset, particularly if it's a single family house or a condo in a relatively low-density development. Right now, the high cost of housing in the Bay Area is largely due to a couple of factors: 1 - high cost of labor. Rezoning won't change that. 2 - restrictions on right to build. Rezoning will reduce this. 3 - high cost of land. Rezoning will increase this, by making it possible to build more units of housing on a given area of land. For most current homeowners, it's likely that 3 will outweigh 2. Developers will buy up some portion of single family housing stock (and low-density multifamily stock) to rebuild the lots with denser housing. That process will both increase demand and reduce supply of those types of housing, resulting in price increases. At the same time, the average unit of housing will cost less, because there will be many more condos/apartments available. Owners of high-density condos would be the most vulnerable to seeing their asset values decrease. However, building big condo buildings is still going to be a complicated endeavor, so price adjustments will happen slowly over time. No one's going to get hosed, although their asset prices might go up more slowly over time than otherwise, or even be eroded by inflation in the long term. At the same time, many of those condo owners will still come out ahead. They may be able to upgrade to a nicer condo than they otherwise could have afforded. They may also benefit from the second-order effects of lower average housing prices, in the form of reduced costs for non-housing items. If they run a business, it will be easier for them to attract and retain workers. Schools and other public services will also be better able to attract and retain quality staff, at a lower wage bill. Etc.
  - collias 7y ago
    This is the type of detailed reply that I come here for, and definitely has reframed how I think about this situation. Thank you!
- joefkelley 7y ago
  The tough thing is of course you are right. It's obviously in your best interest to vote against new housing if you own a house. But it's not in society's best interest.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    But it's really not. Homelessness and destitution also reduce property value. Lots of people leaving California because it's so awful.
  - kofejnik 7y ago
    > But it's not in society's best interest. 1. why are you so sure? What makes you an authority on the whole society's interests? 2. even if so, are you saying that collective interests trump individual rights? This is socialism 101. Government will decide who should live (and work) where, and who should own what.
    - joefkelley 7y ago
      1. I am not sure. This is all just my layman's interpretation. I'll admit I could be very wrong and have no expertise. I'm just discussing. 2. No, in general I believe there's a difficult balance to be struck between individual rights and collective interests. I tend to lean more toward individual rights actually. I would love it if local governments would stop restricting the rights of local developers and allow the free market to determine what is built where more often.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > If I live in California where home prices are sky-high, and I've saved up for nearly a decade for a house, why would I be willing to allow legislation that would likely devalue my biggest asset (by far) that I saved and sacrificed so diligently for? Rezoning would not devalue your house. You'd get more money for it in the long run. Better yet, you'd be able to instantly become a landlord (convert your house into a plex) and move somewhere else that satisfied your desire for a single-family home. Or you'd be able to market to a developer. Plus, if you just kept living in your house, the value would go up anyway, as it always does.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  Same reason people are willing to argue for any tax raises that will cost them money? Because they think the value of a functioning society is greater than the value of the personal assets they will lose.

i_am_nomad 7y ago

Except the school bus is a public good. Are you saying that we should reframe housing as a public good as well and provide it as such?

nostrademons 7y ago
There's no need to assume this. Even if you treat land & housing as a private good, you're entitled to decide what you do with your own land. You're not entitled to decide what other people do with their land. Zoning laws, development restrictions, and HOAs violate this principle - they give existing homeowners a collective power to decide what other homeowners can do with their private property. This makes housing a weird sort of public/private hybrid where you have the private right to protect yourself from change but also the public right to prevent change within your neighborhood, which biases everything towards the status quo. (Importantly, no such restriction exists on population: within the U.S. at least, nobody has the right to prevent their neighbors or fellow citizens from having kids, while they do have the right to prevent their neighbors from building more housing units. There's an inevitable mismatch between reality here...)
- jbattle 7y ago
  You are oversimplifying. Are you OK with someone opening hog farms all around your house? Setting up fracking rigs? Building a factory and running heavy industry?
  - jschwartzi 7y ago
    And you're misrepresenting what the OP is saying. Someone opposed to HOA and zoning isn't saying that it should be okay to locate a chemical plant next door to a preschool. It's more that we as a society shouldn't let people with entrenched interests in the status quo dictate that we stay with the status quo even when it's clear how awful the status quo is. To wit if I want to raise chickens or garden in my suburban backyard that should be my right as long as the chickens don't get out or cause a ruckus. And if the chickens do cause a problem my neighbors' should be limited to seeking legal remedies and not preventing everyone from raising chickens in the future, as most chicken owners are generally responsible. That's very different from running a fracking rig and is much more like the things an HOA prevents you from doing.

riazrizvi 7y ago

I'm a renter but please, this is about families protecting the value of the primary asset that they hope to live on in retirement. Home assets don't skyrocket in value when there is lots of supply. If we frame this thing as reasonable-needs-of-renters vs unreasonable-wants-of-homeowners, then everyone is going to remain at loggerheads.

starpilot 7y ago
Since when is homeownership a requirement for retirement savings? What about IRA's, 401ks? That they chose to stake so much on a more volatile asset is not the fault of the people around them. Should cities sacrifice their urban well-being, pushing people out on the streets and guaranteeing lower-income people can never live there, for the sake of some elderly residents who put their eggs in one basket?
- bbarn 7y ago
  Investment in the market is incredibly volatile compared to real estate. That's why it's called "real" estate.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    No, it's not. In 2008 we saw that that is really not the case. Housing is awful because it's relatively difficult to find an owner and transaction fees are extremely high.
  - throwaway100773 7y ago
    You think that because there isn’t a ticker to tell you your home price every moment from 930-4pm on business days.
logfromblammo 7y ago
The house that the owner lives in is not an asset. It's a durable consumer good. Wanting your home to appreciate in value forever is like expecting your 20-year-old car to sell for more than its sticker price. It really only works for art installations, created by a collaboration of architect, engineer, and builder, with some living space inside. Framed in these terms, most families do not have any significant assets, and a hefty chunk of their resources dedicated to maintaining their gigantic shelter-providing consumer appliance.