5 ms·

I agree. I believe zoning is a big impediment. People wouldn't be priced out of their communities if there was more supply of housing at varying prices. Inste

I agree. I believe zoning is a big impediment. People wouldn't be priced out of their communities if there was more supply of housing at varying prices. Instead current regulations restrict the supply of housing and seem to prioritizing uniformity and property values.

toss1 5y ago
Right, so destroy the village to save it. >>People wouldn't be priced out of their communities if there was more supply of housing Many of the communities you find attractive would not exist at that level of attractiveness if the supply were massively increased by abandoning zoning. People live in communities and make their sets of zoning regs to design, build, and maintain the quality of life that makes that community exist, and pay significant-to-massive extra taxes over the course of decades to build that quality of life, which makes the community attractive. Other communities see development and lower individual tax loads as attractive, and build at higher densities. Simply saying that 'zoning restricts supply and is thus unfair because I want in' is over-simplistic and, to be blunt, greedy and entitled. While I don't know what sort of towns you are talking about, the ones that I'm familiar with would see massive environmental destruction if built as you seem to want, since the spacing and open space was specifically created to maintain a healthy ecosystem in which to live. Declaring it is merely about "uniformity and property values" seems like very shallow self-centered thinking.
- Plasmoid 5y ago
  Why do you think communities shouldn't change? If the population growth rate is 1.8%, why should a city be able to decide that 0% growth is completely acceptable? Would you be willing to pay an uncapped land-value tax on your nicer area? A lot of people are vehemently opposed to paying the full externalities of their choices.
  - toss1 5y ago
    I do not think communities shouldn't change - they do change and grow all the time. Have you ever been to a town meeting? >>Would you be willing to pay an uncapped land-value tax on your nicer area? Of course —WE ALREADY DO—, as pointed out above, everyone already pays much higher taxes - based on land and building value, uncapped - to maintain the environment. (Please do try to keep up and have a clue what you are talking about.) Those changes are fine and should be decided by those affected, not some set of interlopers who just want to basically steal the value that has been created and maintained over decades or centuries. The externality here is yours - if you want to come in and destroy the value that has been created and maintained, are you willing to pay the costs of that - both the costs of decreasing the value in place, and the excess costs paid to maintain the value- i.e., pay the delta in taxes as if the town had had the higher population the whole time?
    - mikem170 5y ago
      > Those changes are fine and should be decided by those affected, not some set of interlopers Those "interlopers" are people's sons and daughters who want to live where they grew up, growing families that need more space, the retired on a fixed income, the working poor struggling to stay housed, those who spend hours commuting, etc. All of these people are your neighbors, not the enemy. > who just want to basically steal the value that has been created and maintained over decades or centuries. That depends on your definition of "value". Do you mean the well-being of everyone in the community? or the market price of your house? For many people jobs, amenities, and culture make for desirable neighborhoods. Single family single use zoning doesn't contribute to any of that.
      - toss1 5y ago
        >>Those "interlopers" are ... I notice that your example start with actual locals growing out of a locale to people who have nothing to do with the locale. Whether someone is enemy or friend all depends on attitude. Are you trying to work with and build upon what the previous generations have built, or are you trying to merely appropriate it because you don't like the price of single-family zoning? >>That depends on your definition of "value". Do you mean the well-being of everyone in the community? or the market price of your house? The market price of the house has little to do with it (and could plausibly increase w/more building by inducing local demand). For me, and everyone I know, market value is not motivating. What IS motivating is threats to the CHARACTER and ENVIRONMENT of the locale - especially the environment - open land, walking trails, actual wildlife and an ecosystem hosting endangered species, butterflies, birds, etc.. THIS is real value to the people who choose to live here. And in fact, the property values are not that great, and certainly have not increased like other areas. So, NO, property values are NOT even close to the top priority of me or anyone I know in this or any other such town I lived in. Yet, in your limited understanding of the issues, property values are all you see. >>the retired on a fixed income, the working poor struggling to stay housed, ihe town I currently live in and surrounding towns have all approved some senior and low-income housing developments (and denied other damaging proposals). >>those who spend hours commuting, etc. Yes, from here commuting is hours to the city center; about 45min in an off time, but nearly two hours at commute time. So, building more here will just create more massive commuting issues. In fact, an MIT study in the area found that it was only the addition of about 250 commuters in an area of three adjacent towns that caused the commuting traffic to go from doable to regularly 'gelling' into intolerable jams — literally just over 100 extra units now regularly extra choked traffic in the whole region. >>For many people jobs, amenities, and culture make for desirable neighborhoods. Single family single use zoning doesn't contribute to any of that. Fine, so find an area that doesn't have single-family zoning and build that up for more jobs, amenities and culture. Do not presume that you have some right to come and literally trash the place because the population density and pricing is not to your liking. That is no different than some developer saying that he should be able to put up a condo development, strip mall, and office zone in a National Park because he thinks it has too low a population density.
- ItsMonkk 5y ago
  I have absolutely no problem with people voting for zoning policies that decrease the supply of housing. I have a major problem with incentive structures that are setup such that the people that own houses in that environment become wealthy through no effort of their own. George figured this out 100 years ago[0]. Implement the Land Value Tax. Go ahead and restrict supply, that's your right. But it's going to cost you in taxes. [0]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...
  - toss1 5y ago
    >> I have a major problem with incentive structures that are setup such that the people that own houses in that environment become wealthy through no effort of their own. This is simply wrong. People are not becoming wealthy with no effort. If they collectively vote in the zoning conditions that restrict supply, they are ALSO creating a situation where they MUST pay more in taxes to maintain those conditions. Everything becomes more expensive, and is amortized over fewer people. The residents literally pay every month for those upgrades in higher taxes, longer commutes, higher maintenance costs on larger houses and yards, etc. In real time, those investments pay off in higher quality of living (which is what you want to access for lower cost). Over time, those investments MAY, but do not always, result in larger increases in value. I can tell you that values in my town has barely increased in 15+ years, whereas nearby towns have increased 30-100%, and our town has probably the most restrictions. People are NOT doing this to become wealthy without work. They are doing it for their and their families' quality of life. Sure, there are a few that are flipping houses as a side gig, but the majority of people living in any area I've seen are there building a life and INVESTING in quality of life.

toss1 5y ago

Right, so destroy the village to save it. >>People wouldn't be priced out of their communities if there was more supply of housing Many of the communities you find attractive would not exist at that level of attractiveness if the supply were massively increased by abandoning zoning. People live in communities and make their sets of zoning regs to design, build, and maintain the quality of life that makes that community exist, and pay significant-to-massive extra taxes over the course of decades to build that quality of life, which makes the community attractive. Other communities see development and lower individual tax loads as attractive, and build at higher densities. Simply saying that 'zoning restricts supply and is thus unfair because I want in' is over-simplistic and, to be blunt, greedy and entitled. While I don't know what sort of towns you are talking about, the ones that I'm familiar with would see massive environmental destruction if built as you seem to want, since the spacing and open space was specifically created to maintain a healthy ecosystem in which to live. Declaring it is merely about "uniformity and property values" seems like very shallow self-centered thinking.

Plasmoid 5y ago
Why do you think communities shouldn't change? If the population growth rate is 1.8%, why should a city be able to decide that 0% growth is completely acceptable? Would you be willing to pay an uncapped land-value tax on your nicer area? A lot of people are vehemently opposed to paying the full externalities of their choices.
- toss1 5y ago
  I do not think communities shouldn't change - they do change and grow all the time. Have you ever been to a town meeting? >>Would you be willing to pay an uncapped land-value tax on your nicer area? Of course —WE ALREADY DO—, as pointed out above, everyone already pays much higher taxes - based on land and building value, uncapped - to maintain the environment. (Please do try to keep up and have a clue what you are talking about.) Those changes are fine and should be decided by those affected, not some set of interlopers who just want to basically steal the value that has been created and maintained over decades or centuries. The externality here is yours - if you want to come in and destroy the value that has been created and maintained, are you willing to pay the costs of that - both the costs of decreasing the value in place, and the excess costs paid to maintain the value- i.e., pay the delta in taxes as if the town had had the higher population the whole time?
  - mikem170 5y ago
    > Those changes are fine and should be decided by those affected, not some set of interlopers Those "interlopers" are people's sons and daughters who want to live where they grew up, growing families that need more space, the retired on a fixed income, the working poor struggling to stay housed, those who spend hours commuting, etc. All of these people are your neighbors, not the enemy. > who just want to basically steal the value that has been created and maintained over decades or centuries. That depends on your definition of "value". Do you mean the well-being of everyone in the community? or the market price of your house? For many people jobs, amenities, and culture make for desirable neighborhoods. Single family single use zoning doesn't contribute to any of that.
    - toss1 5y ago
      >>Those "interlopers" are ... I notice that your example start with actual locals growing out of a locale to people who have nothing to do with the locale. Whether someone is enemy or friend all depends on attitude. Are you trying to work with and build upon what the previous generations have built, or are you trying to merely appropriate it because you don't like the price of single-family zoning? >>That depends on your definition of "value". Do you mean the well-being of everyone in the community? or the market price of your house? The market price of the house has little to do with it (and could plausibly increase w/more building by inducing local demand). For me, and everyone I know, market value is not motivating. What IS motivating is threats to the CHARACTER and ENVIRONMENT of the locale - especially the environment - open land, walking trails, actual wildlife and an ecosystem hosting endangered species, butterflies, birds, etc.. THIS is real value to the people who choose to live here. And in fact, the property values are not that great, and certainly have not increased like other areas. So, NO, property values are NOT even close to the top priority of me or anyone I know in this or any other such town I lived in. Yet, in your limited understanding of the issues, property values are all you see. >>the retired on a fixed income, the working poor struggling to stay housed, ihe town I currently live in and surrounding towns have all approved some senior and low-income housing developments (and denied other damaging proposals). >>those who spend hours commuting, etc. Yes, from here commuting is hours to the city center; about 45min in an off time, but nearly two hours at commute time. So, building more here will just create more massive commuting issues. In fact, an MIT study in the area found that it was only the addition of about 250 commuters in an area of three adjacent towns that caused the commuting traffic to go from doable to regularly 'gelling' into intolerable jams — literally just over 100 extra units now regularly extra choked traffic in the whole region. >>For many people jobs, amenities, and culture make for desirable neighborhoods. Single family single use zoning doesn't contribute to any of that. Fine, so find an area that doesn't have single-family zoning and build that up for more jobs, amenities and culture. Do not presume that you have some right to come and literally trash the place because the population density and pricing is not to your liking. That is no different than some developer saying that he should be able to put up a condo development, strip mall, and office zone in a National Park because he thinks it has too low a population density.
ItsMonkk 5y ago
I have absolutely no problem with people voting for zoning policies that decrease the supply of housing. I have a major problem with incentive structures that are setup such that the people that own houses in that environment become wealthy through no effort of their own. George figured this out 100 years ago[0]. Implement the Land Value Tax. Go ahead and restrict supply, that's your right. But it's going to cost you in taxes. [0]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...
- toss1 5y ago
  >> I have a major problem with incentive structures that are setup such that the people that own houses in that environment become wealthy through no effort of their own. This is simply wrong. People are not becoming wealthy with no effort. If they collectively vote in the zoning conditions that restrict supply, they are ALSO creating a situation where they MUST pay more in taxes to maintain those conditions. Everything becomes more expensive, and is amortized over fewer people. The residents literally pay every month for those upgrades in higher taxes, longer commutes, higher maintenance costs on larger houses and yards, etc. In real time, those investments pay off in higher quality of living (which is what you want to access for lower cost). Over time, those investments MAY, but do not always, result in larger increases in value. I can tell you that values in my town has barely increased in 15+ years, whereas nearby towns have increased 30-100%, and our town has probably the most restrictions. People are NOT doing this to become wealthy without work. They are doing it for their and their families' quality of life. Sure, there are a few that are flipping houses as a side gig, but the majority of people living in any area I've seen are there building a life and INVESTING in quality of life.