4 ms·

Fiddling with the demand side causes problems. Better would be to lift the restrictions on supply, loosen the zoning laws. /Soapbox (not aimed at you): I've b

• imtringued 6y ago
  It's the obvious solution. There is a problem with a lack of jobs in rural communities. These people need a temporary solution that lets them get back to their feet. Doing demand side stimulus does help them but in a completely different way and this has absolutely nothing to do with the housing market which is the biggest concern right now.
• JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  You can call it selfish. But a city becomes a crowded warren without any rules. What is the middle ground?
  • mikem170 6y ago
    Japanese style zoning, allowing density to grow as population grows, allowing mixed residential and commercial appropriate to the density, with designated industrial areas, set forth in a way that neighbors are not allowed to micromanage others in an effort to protect property values. They set these formula at a national level. Codes still exist for safety concerns. I also think that land value taxes are interesting. A five acre undeveloped downtown lot would be taxed based on the surrounding density and market potential, not based on its current development. This would encourage development where it was needed. I see our current system as broken in a number of ways, especially in regards to suburban sprawl and the regulations enshrining that - minimum square footage, parking and garage spots, etc. And many suburbs are at a low enough density that they won't be able to afford to maintain their infrastructure over time without funds from more densely populated (metro or state) areas.
• toss1 6y ago
  A lot of it is based on the environment and investment that the existing homeowners have built in the previous decades. They invested in not only the specific home they bought, but also the neighborhood. They continued investing ever since living there. If they wanted a more dense environment, they would have invested in that sort of location. It costs significantly more to build and maintain less dense-pack areas, from building costs, maintenance costs, to property taxes, and nevermind the emotional investment. Forced rezoning is to simply declare that: "Nope, you and your neighbors have made the biggest investment in your life in creating and maintaining your home and local environment, but we want it. You won't even compensate you by buying you out with eminent domain, we're just going to destroy everything you've built and the value of your largest asset by cutting down the trees, paving the grass, and putting up block buildings for all the people that want to live there, destroying the peace and quiet you've paid exorbatant costs and taxes to build and maintain and nevermind the habitat destruction for all the plants & animals either." It does not work for semi-rural suburbs with 2+ acre zoning, and it doesn't work for quaint San Francisco neighborhoods. I could make more of an argument for the city, since cities are already close to sanitized for wildlife. And, having stopped, for now, a farcical proposal for a high-density building literally in my backyard that would have destroyed a certified endangered species habitat, I can certainly say that it is at best an ignorant prescription. How is it fair to say that some people built X, we want X, since we can't have it, we'll just take it and destroy it? More to your point, I can tell you that it is nothing do do with "greedy property owners". It has to do with having INVESTED in a place and its environmaent, for a specific set of reasons, and having already bought, paid for, and borne the taxes and costs of maintaining that environment, and wanting to preserve that which they have paid for. If they were actually greedy, they would immediately change the zoning laws to allow all that, as they would EACH make a lot more money from their property, and pay less in taxes. They do NOT make those zoning law changes because they agree that each of them will NOT profit from converting to duplexes/triplexes, etc. You have it backwards.
  • mikem170 6y ago
    I understand that you may value your neighborhood. But I think it is tyrannical for you to tell other people they can't safely develop on their property "because you say so". Why should your vote cancel out that of another citizen who wants to build on their own property? What gives you the right? Why don't you and your neighbors buy the property around you if you want to keep it as is? Zoning laws are a modern invention. Historically everyone lived in mixed in neighborhoods. The businesses, the business owners, and the workers all needed to be near each other. Commuter train service started changing that, and then the automobile, allowing the rich to separate form the poor. A good bit of current zoning practices originated in the last century for classist and racist reasons, mandating the size of lots and houses to keep poor people out. The regulatory restrictions on the housing supply cause houses to cost more. I assume you would agree? I feel bad for young people who can't afford a house. Will millennials needs to wait for boomers to die before they can afford to get into a house? It worries me that hedgefunds are buying more and more houses, because it is a rigged market and profitable. It embarrasses me that we don't let homeless people pitch a tent and live somewhere besides hiding in underpasses. Japan is an example of a country that I would say has better zoning regulations. The regulations are set at a federal level, not by municipalities. As the concentration of residents in an area increases the buildings are allowed to increase in height and more businesses are allowed in the area. Industrial areas are kept separate. It is permissible to build housing in an industrial area if one wants to, but not the other way around. That seems logical and fair to me. San Francisco is a good example of the problems caused by restrictive zoning. It appears that folks who didn't want to change the character of their neighborhood have changed it quite a bit. The San Francisco of today is nothing like it was two generations ago. Only certain people can afford to live there now. Instead of hippies, free thinkers, and musicians it is now a place known for overpaid tech workers, NIMBYs, and bums. It is so dysfunctional that teachers, fire, and police workers can't afford to live there anymore. Is that the character that current property owners cherish? Or their ever increasing property values?
• 0xfaded 6y ago
  Yep, building sufficient housing such that demand never rises above supply is a great way to keep housing representative of it's true value.