4 ms·
What I don't get about arguments re: single family home prices benefiting from nimbyism, is that it seems plainly untrue. I do agree that that's the perception
by adam_arthur 5y ago
What I don't get about arguments re: single family home prices benefiting from nimbyism, is that it seems plainly untrue. I do agree that that's the perception however.
Very simple example. Say I own a single family home in mountain view. Tomorrow, the zoning changes such that somebody can build a 10 story building on my plot. Obviously the value of the land goes up tremendously, and the incentive exists to sell to a developer to rebuild it.
So zoning for higher density should only improve value of homes.
Or put another way, say there were a SFH with a yard on a plot in the middle of Manhattan. How much is that home likely worth?
- yunesj 5y agoIncreasing land use rights on a property can only increase the value of that property. However, increasing land use rights on a neighboring property can decrease the value of the original property. For example, a neighbor might want to use their property to establish a brothel. Nimbys want to control property that they don’t own. Seems like theft to me!
- helen___keller 5y agoI think in isolation, allowing construction of a single apartment building in an other SFH neighborhood might push down nearby property values compared to a suburb without the apartment, particularly in places where apartments are stigmatized as being "too urban" You are quite correct that upzoning everywhere only boosts the value of land by allowing better utilization of it. One possible exception might be that by solving the housing crisis by building enough units to satisfy the regions need, it might push down the value of land, especially in the less desirable periphery where you might have previously had folks paying a lot of money just to get a house somewhere.