5 ms·

The anti-growth crowd is often those who already own homes, so they're gaining from the cost of housing exploding.

whatshisface 5y ago
The people who live in an area, it seems, should rightfully decide the rules of that area. It's in their interest to stop competition with their existing property so they will vote against it. At the same time, everyone lives somewhere, and if everyone votes for anti-development policies there will not be enough houses to go around. I guess the policy hurts the up-and-coming to help the established. Still, people should have a right to determine the future of their own communities. I would be interested to hear if any philosophers have untangled this one, because I can clearly see the conflict of two good principles.
- mcculley 5y ago
  It is a mess in a lot of places. I have lived in Florida for 49 years. Retirees basically work against the interests of people who need to work and raise children. I don’t see any solution other than limiting the voting franchise to those with skin in the game.
  - iso1631 5y ago
    Or move elsewhere. Retirees will struggle when there's nobody to wipe their ass because they can't afford to live there.
    - mcculley 5y ago
      They won’t move again. They have the political power. There will be an ever growing service economy with an ever decreasing standard of living. The system is working as designed.
      - iso1631 5y ago
        If the service workers vote with their feet and leave Florida, retirees'll be stuffed.
        slt2021 5y ago
        thats why you have holes in the southern border, to keep bringing fresh meat willing to work for peanuts and without entitlements to the social safety net
        mcculley 5y ago
        There is a related problem in that the businesses profiting from illegal labor are rarely punished when there is a round of deportations. It is not an accident that those who complain loudly about illegal immigrants are often not checking the I-9s.
        mcculley 5y ago
        We know that won’t happen. This is my point. It is not a healthy, free market for labor. The retirees have the political power. Enough people poor enough to pick up the slack will always be available.
- jrs235 5y ago
  >I would be interested to hear if any philosophers have untangled this one Georgism?
- erehweb 5y ago
  But what is the community that people have the right to determine the future of? The town? The county? The state? The U.S.?
- iso1631 5y ago
  People who are lucky enough to get the Oranges early in the game have an unfair advantage
- handmodel 5y ago
  I don't think you need to be a philosopher to realize the trade-offs. The issue is that if every community does this (as they pretty much have) then anyone whose family didn't have property 50 years ago will be stuck with bad housing and anyone whose family had housing 50 years ago will be able to fund their housing. Its a coordination problem. Clearly a small town may be sacrificing something by decreasing their own values with building - but if every town in the same country individually makes the optimal choice for themselves then the result for the country overall is not great for anyone.
- jjk166 5y ago
  > The people who live in an area, it seems, should rightfully decide the rules of that area This sounds nice, until you consider that "people who live in an area" is merely a proxy for community members, and a poor proxy at that. The people who work in an area are part of the community too, and should not be excluded from the decision making process. If towns can tax non-residents who work there, they can give them representation.
  - slt2021 5y ago
    this is medieval England thinking, where only landlord had a vote and could decide the future of the country/community
    - iso1631 5y ago
      It's founding father thinking. Madison for example said "Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] ...may be overruled by a majority without property.... " Back in 1776, you could vote in the US. If you were 1) White 2) Male 3) Owned property 4) Were not Catholic, Jewish or Quaker When Washington was elected in 1789, only 6% of the population could vote. Even as late as 1850, some states (North Carolina for example) still denied the vote to white men (let alone anyone else) who didn't own property, and it was 1964 when the idea of paying to vote was finally outlawed with the 24th amendment.
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
Right. People seem to think that if the cost of hotdogs goes up, that home owners who's $1M house appreciated an extra 10% are getting screwed. They're not. Unless they're spending an absurd amount of money on local services.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  The people who made $100k on paper will end up without it if they hold on to their house until the market gives up on moving people in to their housing-constrained locale. They'd have to sell it during the rush to benefit, otherwise they pay the higher living costs for a while only to see their equity return to its original valuation.
  - jonfw 5y ago
    Housing prices are much stickier up than you give them credit for
    - bluGill 5y ago
      No they are not. I've lost a ton of money on houses in the past. However it is clearly a matter of how much housing is built, when you are not allowed to build as much housing as the market wants prices go up and prices remain sticky. So long as the market is allowed to build, the cost of materials/labor is the factor. (Land is less a factor than you think because someone will get the idea of building up if allowed thus amortizing over less area)
      - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
        In what part of the US are you that houses cost $1M, AND you're allowed to build houses? There are few places in the country where houses are expensive, AND you can actually build housing.
        bluGill 5y ago
        That isn't housing prices being sticky, that is house prices following supply and demand.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
No, they aren't gaining - not yet. They only gain when they sell. In the meantime, their property taxes probably go up, and their cost of services goes up because businesses have higher costs.
- jonfw 5y ago
  For anybody who earns more than their expenses- additional cash flow and increases in net worth are interchangeable. Meaning that if you gave me 10k in cash I'd just invest it in an asset that appreciates, so if you give me 10k in home equity, which is an asset that appreciates, it's almost just as good.
lumost 5y ago
If housing hadn't exploded in the US over the last 30 years the US would have needed to confront the fact that wages would never allow anyone to retire or build any wealth.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  Wait, so the Boomers collectively cashed a 'one-time lotto ticket' to benefit themselves without fixing any problems for future generations? Weird, so unlike them.
- thechao 5y ago
  There seem to be four 'big' models for quitting-work-when-you're-old: kids; socialized safety nets; pensions; and, home-wealth. One of these things is not like the others.
- swiley 5y ago
  If housing hadn't exploded over the last 30 years I don't think stagnant wage growth would have been an issue. I've always felt like housing is the biggest indicator of inflation.
  - 15charlimitdumb 5y ago
    And housing is not included in official inflation statistics... :facepalm:
- closeparen 5y ago
  Housing prices will find whatever level is necessary to price out the excess housing seekers relative to available homes. Higher wages simply mean a bigger number.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    Available homes is not a constant. New structures can be built, inefficiently utilized land can be rezoned, and transportation infrastructure can be improved to increase the effective size of an area. You might seriously run out of living space in an area like Manhattan, but in 99.9% of cases increased demand should lead to increased supply in a functioning market.
motioncuty 5y ago
And home owners tend to vote in elections, especially local ones.
lawnchair_larry 5y ago
Speaking as an anti-growther who has been in this situation, this almost never the case. Inflated housing doesn’t help them at all, it just drives up all ancillary costs of living and causes property taxes to rise. They are anti-growth because they bought a specific location for a specific reason. If you go through all that to find and invest in your ideal community, you don’t want it to be bulldozed and changed into high density shit with bad traffic, long lines, crowded attractions, higher crime, more noise, etc.

The people who live in an area, it seems, should rightfully decide the rules of that area. It's in their interest to stop competition with their existing property so they will vote against it. At the same time, everyone lives somewhere, and if everyone votes for anti-development policies there will not be enough houses to go around. I guess the policy hurts the up-and-coming to help the established. Still, people should have a right to determine the future of their own communities. I would be interested to hear if any philosophers have untangled this one, because I can clearly see the conflict of two good principles.

mcculley 5y ago
It is a mess in a lot of places. I have lived in Florida for 49 years. Retirees basically work against the interests of people who need to work and raise children. I don’t see any solution other than limiting the voting franchise to those with skin in the game.
- iso1631 5y ago
  Or move elsewhere. Retirees will struggle when there's nobody to wipe their ass because they can't afford to live there.
  - mcculley 5y ago
    They won’t move again. They have the political power. There will be an ever growing service economy with an ever decreasing standard of living. The system is working as designed.
    - iso1631 5y ago
      If the service workers vote with their feet and leave Florida, retirees'll be stuffed.
      - slt2021 5y ago
        thats why you have holes in the southern border, to keep bringing fresh meat willing to work for peanuts and without entitlements to the social safety net
        mcculley 5y ago
        There is a related problem in that the businesses profiting from illegal labor are rarely punished when there is a round of deportations. It is not an accident that those who complain loudly about illegal immigrants are often not checking the I-9s.
      - mcculley 5y ago
        We know that won’t happen. This is my point. It is not a healthy, free market for labor. The retirees have the political power. Enough people poor enough to pick up the slack will always be available.
jrs235 5y ago
>I would be interested to hear if any philosophers have untangled this one Georgism?
erehweb 5y ago
But what is the community that people have the right to determine the future of? The town? The county? The state? The U.S.?
iso1631 5y ago
People who are lucky enough to get the Oranges early in the game have an unfair advantage
handmodel 5y ago
I don't think you need to be a philosopher to realize the trade-offs. The issue is that if every community does this (as they pretty much have) then anyone whose family didn't have property 50 years ago will be stuck with bad housing and anyone whose family had housing 50 years ago will be able to fund their housing. Its a coordination problem. Clearly a small town may be sacrificing something by decreasing their own values with building - but if every town in the same country individually makes the optimal choice for themselves then the result for the country overall is not great for anyone.
jjk166 5y ago
> The people who live in an area, it seems, should rightfully decide the rules of that area This sounds nice, until you consider that "people who live in an area" is merely a proxy for community members, and a poor proxy at that. The people who work in an area are part of the community too, and should not be excluded from the decision making process. If towns can tax non-residents who work there, they can give them representation.
- slt2021 5y ago
  this is medieval England thinking, where only landlord had a vote and could decide the future of the country/community
  - iso1631 5y ago
    It's founding father thinking. Madison for example said "Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] ...may be overruled by a majority without property.... " Back in 1776, you could vote in the US. If you were 1) White 2) Male 3) Owned property 4) Were not Catholic, Jewish or Quaker When Washington was elected in 1789, only 6% of the population could vote. Even as late as 1850, some states (North Carolina for example) still denied the vote to white men (let alone anyone else) who didn't own property, and it was 1964 when the idea of paying to vote was finally outlawed with the 24th amendment.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

Right. People seem to think that if the cost of hotdogs goes up, that home owners who's $1M house appreciated an extra 10% are getting screwed. They're not. Unless they're spending an absurd amount of money on local services.

whatshisface 5y ago
The people who made $100k on paper will end up without it if they hold on to their house until the market gives up on moving people in to their housing-constrained locale. They'd have to sell it during the rush to benefit, otherwise they pay the higher living costs for a while only to see their equity return to its original valuation.
- jonfw 5y ago
  Housing prices are much stickier up than you give them credit for
  - bluGill 5y ago
    No they are not. I've lost a ton of money on houses in the past. However it is clearly a matter of how much housing is built, when you are not allowed to build as much housing as the market wants prices go up and prices remain sticky. So long as the market is allowed to build, the cost of materials/labor is the factor. (Land is less a factor than you think because someone will get the idea of building up if allowed thus amortizing over less area)
    - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
      In what part of the US are you that houses cost $1M, AND you're allowed to build houses? There are few places in the country where houses are expensive, AND you can actually build housing.
      - bluGill 5y ago
        That isn't housing prices being sticky, that is house prices following supply and demand.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

No, they aren't gaining - not yet. They only gain when they sell. In the meantime, their property taxes probably go up, and their cost of services goes up because businesses have higher costs.

jonfw 5y ago
For anybody who earns more than their expenses- additional cash flow and increases in net worth are interchangeable. Meaning that if you gave me 10k in cash I'd just invest it in an asset that appreciates, so if you give me 10k in home equity, which is an asset that appreciates, it's almost just as good.

lumost 5y ago

If housing hadn't exploded in the US over the last 30 years the US would have needed to confront the fact that wages would never allow anyone to retire or build any wealth.

RC_ITR 5y ago
Wait, so the Boomers collectively cashed a 'one-time lotto ticket' to benefit themselves without fixing any problems for future generations? Weird, so unlike them.
thechao 5y ago
There seem to be four 'big' models for quitting-work-when-you're-old: kids; socialized safety nets; pensions; and, home-wealth. One of these things is not like the others.
swiley 5y ago
If housing hadn't exploded over the last 30 years I don't think stagnant wage growth would have been an issue. I've always felt like housing is the biggest indicator of inflation.
- 15charlimitdumb 5y ago
  And housing is not included in official inflation statistics... :facepalm:
closeparen 5y ago
Housing prices will find whatever level is necessary to price out the excess housing seekers relative to available homes. Higher wages simply mean a bigger number.
- jjk166 5y ago
  Available homes is not a constant. New structures can be built, inefficiently utilized land can be rezoned, and transportation infrastructure can be improved to increase the effective size of an area. You might seriously run out of living space in an area like Manhattan, but in 99.9% of cases increased demand should lead to increased supply in a functioning market.

motioncuty 5y ago

And home owners tend to vote in elections, especially local ones.

lawnchair_larry 5y ago

Speaking as an anti-growther who has been in this situation, this almost never the case. Inflated housing doesn’t help them at all, it just drives up all ancillary costs of living and causes property taxes to rise. They are anti-growth because they bought a specific location for a specific reason. If you go through all that to find and invest in your ideal community, you don’t want it to be bulldozed and changed into high density shit with bad traffic, long lines, crowded attractions, higher crime, more noise, etc.