3 ms·

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-hi

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.

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.