3 ms·
I wish there was some way to fix the incentives so people valued growth properly. Currently the incentives are broken. If you buy in you’re incentivized to lim
by fossuser 6y ago
I wish there was some way to fix the incentives so people valued growth properly.
Currently the incentives are broken. If you buy in you’re incentivized to limit any future growth to capitalize your ownership of restricted supply. This takes many forms, but zoning, “neighborhood character”, “environmentalism”, noise, shadows, etc. - it’s all about supply restriction.
If there was a way for everyone to get the increased value that came from growth more explicitly then I think the political incentives would shift. You’d still have to overcome some status quo bias, but at least there wouldn’t be a direct economic incentive for owners to restrict supply.
No idea how something like this could be structured.
At least new RHNA numbers seem good, I’d also like to see something that revokes prop13 protection for localities that block new housing. If you’re going to fuck everyone else over, you should at least have to pay for it.
- Nasrudith 6y agoThere already is value given for not limiting growth - it is called growth and absence of pronlems. The main issue is that they don't see them. One dumb top of the head idea is a new development "tax" to existing owners within a certain radius. It is pretty perverse in its self. Hopefully it would be offset by absense of NIMBY costs. Probably not the best concept by any means and had loads of flaws I haven't noticed but it could technically help.