4 ms·

America has been doing that for the last 75 years. New data is not required. 1. Municipality sets minimum lot size and maximum density rules so living in the "

America has been doing that for the last 75 years. New data is not required. 1. Municipality sets minimum lot size and maximum density rules so living in the "nice" neighborhood requires buying more land than you actually need. Originally this replaced race based zoning. 2. Can't afford that much land? Go live in the other neighborhood that allows fourplexes, apartments, and condos. 3. Now that your community is segregated, it's easy to adjust city services so schools, roads, and parks are better in the rich neighborhoods. Equifax credit scores are part of the system, but the root of evil is in land use policy. Deep red and deep blue local governments are all doing this. "More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-segregation-study-university-of-california-berkeley https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-se... The report that interview is based on, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/roots-structural-racism https://belonging.berkeley.edu/roots-structural-racism

acituan 5y ago
I don't doubt the consequences you've laid out, but isn't rent seeking[1] a simpler explanation as the motivating principle? For spatial goods, keeping a cap at density means preventing an increase in supply and keeping/increasing the value extractable of the already owned land. [1] To clarify I am talking about "economic rent" in its wider meaning.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Why does everything that isn't maximal urbanism have to have some nefarious motivation to it? Maybe people just want privacy, a certain architectural aesthetic, and a lifestyle that isn't possible with overcrowding.
  - wait_a_minute 5y ago
    it’s easier to control people if they’re all living inside a huge city.
    - jazzyjackson 5y ago
      I have no idea what kind of control you're insinuating.
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        From recent history covid lockdowns come to mind.
  - bcrosby95 5y ago
    Most people are just pissed (me included) that in the vast majority of the US it's literally illegal to build housing and neighborhoods that many of us would like to live in.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      It is not illegal to build housing in the vast majority of the US. Building neighbourhoods in existing cities takes city approval. You may want to throw up condos on the waterfront or knockdown low income housing to put up your storefront or build low rises on farms. Those ideas could work but your low rises need millions of dollars of work to get pumping,electrical,fiber. Removing low income housing or building condos in front of the waterfront has tradeoffs for society as a whole you must be weighted. Most people understand this on some level and are not pissed off.
      - cheriot 5y ago
        Most residential zoned land is single family house exclusive. Allow development there and there's no need to knock down low income housing or sprawl over green space. But that's not the choice municipalities make. The municipal financial argument doesn't hold water. Urban areas generate tax revenue beyond their cost of infrastructure.
  - cheriot 5y ago
    It takes a certain motivation look at modern segregation and say, "but my aesthetic."
- nostrademons 5y ago
  Or just simple misaligned incentives. At the time communities are formed and lots are subdivided, they're planned out based on the prevailing population densities and consumer desires of the time. People move in because they like how the community feels, and then are disincentivized toward changing it because any change would take it away from the local optimum that they bought into. The people who would benefit are those who don't currently live in the community. Property owners get a vote; prospective property owners do not get a vote; ergo nearly all communities are biased towards the needs of existing property owners over newcomers. Talking to boomers, I don't get the sense that either racism or property values are the motivating force behind zoning restrictions. Rather, they want to preserve privacy, natural beauty, traffic, neighborliness, and the general aesthetic that they bought into. Racial discrimination, high housing values, and homelessness are consequences that fall out of that, but most people voting for these policies are not thinking about those. It's "fuck you I got mine", but out of apathy rather than malice.
- cheriot 5y ago
  People will talk about "protecting property values", but I'm going to claim that's not the underlying motivation. 1. The history is easy, these rules were created originally to maintain racial segregation. The Color of Law covers this in detail. For a shorter form, check out https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-fight-to-desegregate-berkeley/ https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-f... 2. Upzoning a property makes it more valuable. It's giving back property rights to the owner. There's no cost to the owner, but now large developers are a potential buyer. The _real_ selfish move is to demand that ONLY my property is upzoned. When municipalities consider upzoning, we don't see 2. Instead we get people talking about "destroying" the neighborhood. Renters are referred to as transients. Occasionally the mask comes of and we hear about "those people". When people genuinely think those things are going to happen, they also think their property value will go down. It's like people talking about the civil war in terms of state's rights instead of slavery. Makes perfect sense if you think of slaves as property. Edit: To be clear, I think there's a lot of people that think of single family housing as a "lifestyle" that they prefer and are not necessarily bad people. However those with the most visceral reaction that actually become activists tend to be a combination of racist and classist.
Kharvok 5y ago
One could look at this and say that with higher mobility over the last 30 years people will increasingly select to live in socially cohesive communities. We know this to be the case in other areas.

acituan 5y ago

I don't doubt the consequences you've laid out, but isn't rent seeking[1] a simpler explanation as the motivating principle? For spatial goods, keeping a cap at density means preventing an increase in supply and keeping/increasing the value extractable of the already owned land. [1] To clarify I am talking about "economic rent" in its wider meaning.

nitrogen 5y ago
Why does everything that isn't maximal urbanism have to have some nefarious motivation to it? Maybe people just want privacy, a certain architectural aesthetic, and a lifestyle that isn't possible with overcrowding.
- wait_a_minute 5y ago
  it’s easier to control people if they’re all living inside a huge city.
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    I have no idea what kind of control you're insinuating.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      From recent history covid lockdowns come to mind.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  Most people are just pissed (me included) that in the vast majority of the US it's literally illegal to build housing and neighborhoods that many of us would like to live in.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    It is not illegal to build housing in the vast majority of the US. Building neighbourhoods in existing cities takes city approval. You may want to throw up condos on the waterfront or knockdown low income housing to put up your storefront or build low rises on farms. Those ideas could work but your low rises need millions of dollars of work to get pumping,electrical,fiber. Removing low income housing or building condos in front of the waterfront has tradeoffs for society as a whole you must be weighted. Most people understand this on some level and are not pissed off.
    - cheriot 5y ago
      Most residential zoned land is single family house exclusive. Allow development there and there's no need to knock down low income housing or sprawl over green space. But that's not the choice municipalities make. The municipal financial argument doesn't hold water. Urban areas generate tax revenue beyond their cost of infrastructure.
- cheriot 5y ago
  It takes a certain motivation look at modern segregation and say, "but my aesthetic."
nostrademons 5y ago
Or just simple misaligned incentives. At the time communities are formed and lots are subdivided, they're planned out based on the prevailing population densities and consumer desires of the time. People move in because they like how the community feels, and then are disincentivized toward changing it because any change would take it away from the local optimum that they bought into. The people who would benefit are those who don't currently live in the community. Property owners get a vote; prospective property owners do not get a vote; ergo nearly all communities are biased towards the needs of existing property owners over newcomers. Talking to boomers, I don't get the sense that either racism or property values are the motivating force behind zoning restrictions. Rather, they want to preserve privacy, natural beauty, traffic, neighborliness, and the general aesthetic that they bought into. Racial discrimination, high housing values, and homelessness are consequences that fall out of that, but most people voting for these policies are not thinking about those. It's "fuck you I got mine", but out of apathy rather than malice.
cheriot 5y ago
People will talk about "protecting property values", but I'm going to claim that's not the underlying motivation. 1. The history is easy, these rules were created originally to maintain racial segregation. The Color of Law covers this in detail. For a shorter form, check out https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-fight-to-desegregate-berkeley/ https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-f... 2. Upzoning a property makes it more valuable. It's giving back property rights to the owner. There's no cost to the owner, but now large developers are a potential buyer. The _real_ selfish move is to demand that ONLY my property is upzoned. When municipalities consider upzoning, we don't see 2. Instead we get people talking about "destroying" the neighborhood. Renters are referred to as transients. Occasionally the mask comes of and we hear about "those people". When people genuinely think those things are going to happen, they also think their property value will go down. It's like people talking about the civil war in terms of state's rights instead of slavery. Makes perfect sense if you think of slaves as property. Edit: To be clear, I think there's a lot of people that think of single family housing as a "lifestyle" that they prefer and are not necessarily bad people. However those with the most visceral reaction that actually become activists tend to be a combination of racist and classist.

Kharvok 5y ago

One could look at this and say that with higher mobility over the last 30 years people will increasingly select to live in socially cohesive communities. We know this to be the case in other areas.