3 ms·
"Entirely too many areas of California are opposed to new housing developments because it's going to lower their property values. Period. End of story." This e
by nostrademons 5y ago
"Entirely too many areas of California are opposed to new housing developments because it's going to lower their property values. Period. End of story."
This explanation is commonly repeated, but it rings false, for a couple reasons.
One is that if you ever talk to a NIMBY boomer (or are related to one), you'll very rarely hear them talk about their home value, except in the context of lamenting how their kids can't live near them anymore. Instead, you'll hear them talk about how they'll lose their view if the high-rise goes up, or they'll be in shadow, or that it'll bring in the riff-raff, or the roads can't support more traffic, or how will the school systems cope, or it'll change the bucolic character of the town, or you won't be able to know your neighbors. It's all about preserving lifestyle, not money.
A second is that even if these are bullshit excuses for actually wanting money, their incentives don't add up. The worst NIMBYs are people who intend to die in their home and never move again. Economically, they shouldn't care about their home value, because by the time they can turn it into cash, they'll be dead. A lot of them are even childless, so the "leave an inheritance for the kids" argument doesn't apply.
A third reason is that development usually raises home values. 30 units on a half acre in the Bay Area goes for about $10M; 1 unit on a half acre in the Bay Area goes for about $3-4M. This is how developers profit, and how they can convince homeowners to sell to them in the first place. Upzone a 1/2 acre SFH and the homeowner can pocket a million or two over fair market value, and the developer pockets maybe $3M after construction costs.
A more likely explanation is to a.) take NIMBYs at their word when they say it's all about quality of life rather than finances and b.) understand that development privatizes gains among former and non-residents, socializes losses among current residents, and socializes gains among future residents. When a lot gets upzoned, the people who make a financial windfall are the developer (non-resident) and the seller (former resident). The people who enjoy a better quality of life are the new residents who move in and wouldn't otherwise have a home in a desirable community (future residents). The people who suffer a worse quality of life - for all the reasons listed above - are the existing homeowners (current residents). Guess who are the voters?
- makomk 5y agoAlso, the big elephant in the room here is that the denser housing is, the more quality-of-life for people living there is affected by things outside the bounds of their individual property and the more important it becomes for them to have a say in that. YIMBY campaigners can post all the photos they like of high-rises surrounded by parkland to argue that high-density living doesn't have to be a dystopian hellscape, but when the founding principle of YIMBY-ism is that developers could replace those parks with a blank wall blocking out all sunlight to the residents' windows or an art gallery full of visitors looking directly into their lives all day and the residents should have no way of stopping it that's basically just a bait-and-switch. (The art gallery example and the YIMBY reaction to it is something that actually happened in London!)
- enaaem 5y agoYou can have sensible regulations to prevent your neighbours blocking the sun and allow proper air flow between buildings. https://japanpropertycentral.com/real-estate-faq/building-height-restrictions/ https://japanpropertycentral.com/real-estate-faq/building-he...
- EricDeb 5y agoI know some nimby boomers and agree that's exactly what they say but I don't see why they can't move they don't need to be there for economic reasons they could buy 3x the house in some costal town much further from the city. Young people generally want to be near cities because that's where the jobs are.
- jjav 5y ago> but I don't see why they can't move If your position is that a non-resident can come into town and force a long-time resident to have to move out just because they want to take their place, how is that ok?
- viraptor 5y agoIf they're actually boomers, they likely have some kind of social network in their area, they have habits, they have families relatively close, etc. Actual boomers are close to 70yo and that's not the age, where many are ready for a life change. 3x the house in some coastal town they have no meaningful connection to is not going to appeal to a lot of them.
- ericmay 5y ago> but I don't see why they can't move they don't need to be there… What does it matter? They bought property just like any other person in America. If you work remote does that mean you should have to live in the middle of nowhere to free up space for someone who commutes?
- MomoXenosaga 5y agoOld people usually need medical care. I see it with my own, she starts the day taking half a bucket of pills lol. Are there care workers or hospitals in the area? Maybe they can no longer drive a car? In which case you're basically stranded in the countryside.
- zip1234 5y agoThey are people who think their neighborhood should never change after they move in.
- jjav 5y ago> This explanation is commonly repeated, but it rings false, for a couple reasons. Good explanation, thanks. While often repeated on HN, reality is that existing homeowners have the home to live in it, approximately none of them are tracking prices or caring if it goes up/down. The only exception is the house flippers, but those are a tiny minority. Even for the rare few who do obsessively track prices, they don't matter because the city planning commissions who approve the permits to building companies are not consulting with any voters on what they do or don't do.