4 ms·

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 al

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.

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.