5 ms·

Existing homeowners don’t want more “nice” places because it reduces the value of their own homes. When you have more options and less of a perception of scarci

Existing homeowners don’t want more “nice” places because it reduces the value of their own homes. When you have more options and less of a perception of scarcity, prices adjust. We really erred in allowing homes to become a vehicle of generational wealth. It creates perverse incentives that prevent cities from growing in ways that serve their populations, and instead only serve people wealthy enough to own property in desirable areas.

xyzelement 5y ago
> Existing homeowners don’t want more “nice” places because it reduces the value of their own homes. Well - what does that actually mean? I own a home, and I am not interested in a huge apartment building going up next door (for reasons that aren't property values) but I have no objection to the boundary of my town expanding, or a new town being established a little bit down the road. Yes sure those things will create competition for my home and lower my values in some way but it's just not something I or any other sane homeowner go around thinking about. Nor frankly do I have any influence over that.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gkop 5y ago
  Huge apartment buildings are “lumpy” and indeed impose externalities locally. I’ve been thinking a lot recently about if we could evenly distribute housing, we could cut through some of the NIMBY opposition. Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem. Unfortunately, in many places SFH owners will come out in force to fight nearby quad plexes. [0] https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-changes-zoning-code-to-allow-duplexes-triplexes-fourplexes-in-areas-previously-reserved-for-single-family-homes.html https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-changes...
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    Car culture makes this difficult. Either you make requirements for on-site parking (more expensive; limits housing styles in residential areas) or the neighborhood becomes a parking lot. Until we have a less car-centric economy, anything more than a duplex will change the character of most residential neighborhoods.
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    >> Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem I would actually not be OK with quads next door to my house right now, because that is not the type of life I bought into. That may sound crazy so let me explain. For 39 years, I valued density/walkability/convenience of city life, and lived in NYC for most of that time. Now that I have a family, I value certain other things in my life. We specifically chose a town that was "dense enough" but not "too dense" - zoning here allows neither mansions nor quads you're talking about. This has impact on things like - how busy the traffic is on local streets, how much green space there is, etc. Everyone who lives in this town chose it for the same reason. Is not wanting quads next door NIMBYism? I don't think so... When I lived in the city, I wanted more tall buildings next to me, when I live in this town, I want more "this-town-style" homes next to me. Why am I ok with this? Simply because nobody moves to this town unless you want this life. If you want a more dense town with duplexes, triplexes etc, then there are other towns around us that are already zoned this way and people who live there want that. If you want even more density, NYC outer boroughs are just a few miles away. So people have choice.
    - brendoelfrendo 5y ago
      >I would actually not be OK with quads next door to my house right now, because that is not the type of life I bought into. This is, definitionally, NIMBYism. Resisting necessary change in your town because it doesn't jive with what you want is more or less the problem. Now, maybe your town doesn't need quads or apartments or anything of the sort. Maybe the properties and zoning laws that exist are able to meet demand. But if your town is growing faster than single-family construction can keep up; if people aren't able to afford to live close to their jobs; if you see your town becoming more exclusive, something that often comes at the expense of local businesses or municipal budgets; then reality dictates that we embrace change. Of course, it sounds like you're in an area close to NYC, so you would hold that there's already suitable choice of housing in your area to meet peoples' needs. I think the areas where this debate is more prevalent are the ones in the PNW, Southeast, and Mountain west/Southwest portions of the US where cities are busting at the seams and zoning is a huge barrier for the stock of housing.
- jjav 5y ago
  > it's just not something I or any other sane homeowner go around thinking about. > Nor frankly do I have any influence over that. Very much this. There is no cabal of homeowners opposed to lower prices despite it being often repeated. People buy a house to live in it, they're not paying attention to who is building what. Also nobody is asking homeowners opinion on what build sites get approved or not. If there ever was a proposition related to housing approval it would be in the ballot open to all citizens. Early in the history of the USA only landowners could vote, but it's been a very long time since that's been the case.
  - engineeringwoke 5y ago
    > Very much this. There is no cabal of homeowners opposed to lower prices despite it being often repeated. Then let's raise interest rates to 5% again. It's some coincidence that we "need" zero-interest rate policy and quantitative easing when the boomers are in control... even worse in Japan, which is even more boomer dominated. Sure... just lots of coincidences.

xyzelement 5y ago

> Existing homeowners don’t want more “nice” places because it reduces the value of their own homes. Well - what does that actually mean? I own a home, and I am not interested in a huge apartment building going up next door (for reasons that aren't property values) but I have no objection to the boundary of my town expanding, or a new town being established a little bit down the road. Yes sure those things will create competition for my home and lower my values in some way but it's just not something I or any other sane homeowner go around thinking about. Nor frankly do I have any influence over that.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gkop 5y ago
Huge apartment buildings are “lumpy” and indeed impose externalities locally. I’ve been thinking a lot recently about if we could evenly distribute housing, we could cut through some of the NIMBY opposition. Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem. Unfortunately, in many places SFH owners will come out in force to fight nearby quad plexes. [0] https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-changes-zoning-code-to-allow-duplexes-triplexes-fourplexes-in-areas-previously-reserved-for-single-family-homes.html https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-changes...
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  Car culture makes this difficult. Either you make requirements for on-site parking (more expensive; limits housing styles in residential areas) or the neighborhood becomes a parking lot. Until we have a less car-centric economy, anything more than a duplex will change the character of most residential neighborhoods.
- xyzelement 5y ago
  >> Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem I would actually not be OK with quads next door to my house right now, because that is not the type of life I bought into. That may sound crazy so let me explain. For 39 years, I valued density/walkability/convenience of city life, and lived in NYC for most of that time. Now that I have a family, I value certain other things in my life. We specifically chose a town that was "dense enough" but not "too dense" - zoning here allows neither mansions nor quads you're talking about. This has impact on things like - how busy the traffic is on local streets, how much green space there is, etc. Everyone who lives in this town chose it for the same reason. Is not wanting quads next door NIMBYism? I don't think so... When I lived in the city, I wanted more tall buildings next to me, when I live in this town, I want more "this-town-style" homes next to me. Why am I ok with this? Simply because nobody moves to this town unless you want this life. If you want a more dense town with duplexes, triplexes etc, then there are other towns around us that are already zoned this way and people who live there want that. If you want even more density, NYC outer boroughs are just a few miles away. So people have choice.
  - brendoelfrendo 5y ago
    >I would actually not be OK with quads next door to my house right now, because that is not the type of life I bought into. This is, definitionally, NIMBYism. Resisting necessary change in your town because it doesn't jive with what you want is more or less the problem. Now, maybe your town doesn't need quads or apartments or anything of the sort. Maybe the properties and zoning laws that exist are able to meet demand. But if your town is growing faster than single-family construction can keep up; if people aren't able to afford to live close to their jobs; if you see your town becoming more exclusive, something that often comes at the expense of local businesses or municipal budgets; then reality dictates that we embrace change. Of course, it sounds like you're in an area close to NYC, so you would hold that there's already suitable choice of housing in your area to meet peoples' needs. I think the areas where this debate is more prevalent are the ones in the PNW, Southeast, and Mountain west/Southwest portions of the US where cities are busting at the seams and zoning is a huge barrier for the stock of housing.
jjav 5y ago
> it's just not something I or any other sane homeowner go around thinking about. > Nor frankly do I have any influence over that. Very much this. There is no cabal of homeowners opposed to lower prices despite it being often repeated. People buy a house to live in it, they're not paying attention to who is building what. Also nobody is asking homeowners opinion on what build sites get approved or not. If there ever was a proposition related to housing approval it would be in the ballot open to all citizens. Early in the history of the USA only landowners could vote, but it's been a very long time since that's been the case.
- engineeringwoke 5y ago
  > Very much this. There is no cabal of homeowners opposed to lower prices despite it being often repeated. Then let's raise interest rates to 5% again. It's some coincidence that we "need" zero-interest rate policy and quantitative easing when the boomers are in control... even worse in Japan, which is even more boomer dominated. Sure... just lots of coincidences.