4 ms·

This. The people with influence in both parties benefit from the status quo, enjoy their privilege, and only want things to change from a distance.

aeternum 5y ago
I'm not sure it's even necessary to blame politicians with influence. Over the last few decades, we made home ownership a goal for the vast majority of the US populace. Now we expect those homeowners to vote against their own self-interest (to approve additional housing units/zoning).
- cheriot 5y ago
  Agree that voting blocks with influence are a big part of it. I don't think it's rational self-interest, though. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29784347 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29784347
  - aeternum 5y ago
    Upzoning might increase land value but often decreases property value. In general supply and demand still functions, by increasing supply the price should decrease. What evidence is there that it is due to racism, classism and fear rather than rational self-interest?
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      Who says the two are exclusive? You can go to any US planning meeting and find at least one person who alludes to the wrong type of person moving in resulting in loss of "neighborhood character". Racist and classist concerns also influence property value. Blockbusting was a real estate practice that worked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting
    - cheriot 5y ago
      > Upzoning might increase land value but often decreases property value. Is there an example of where that happened? A developer building an apartment building can pay more than an owner occupant. The complaints from wealthy neighborhoods start with quality of life and degrade into questioning "what kind of people" will housing/transportation/amenities attract. I base this on listening to public meetings in SF / Bay Area so lots of local bias.
      - aeternum 5y ago
        Those selling the land to the developer profit but there are lots of examples in which home values around the new building decrease due to blocked views/shade/decreased privacy. From a societal POV we should be building higher density and the drawbacks are worth it, but it is also in the rational self-interest of those building neighbors to vote against the new development. NY has alleviated this somewhat by granting all existing landowners some air-rights that they can choose to sell to nearby highrises. Something like this might be the right way to go so that the nearby owners receive some recompense.
        cheriot 5y ago
        The same laws that prevent mid size apartment buildings often prevent an existing home from being divided into a duplex or triplex. Why restrict the number of kitchens and exterior doors? For most single family exclusive neighborhoods, I don't think air rights are relevant. They don't want people with less money moving in. It's the same motivation as Marin County, CA and the Georgetown neighborhood of DC refusing train stops to "keep the riff raff out". The exclusion is the point.
        sokoloff 5y ago
        Traffic and parking concerns are legitimate gripes that I’ve heard (and I’m inclined to feel myself). I don’t care who lives next to me, because my interactions with them are limited to kindly waves as we pass on the sidewalk. If I couldn’t park my car anywhere near my house because the alternative timeline neighborhood had twice as many cars because it had twice as many kitchens and exterior doors, I’d be less satisfied with my neighborhood as compared to now where the parking is generally adequate except on street cleaning days. That’s got nothing whatsoever to do with who the other car owners are, how expensive the other cars are, or how rich they are. This is also some of where “each new residential lot needs X feet of frontage and Y parking spaces per unit” zoning laws come from. It’s not just “keep the poors out” (although that may be a secondary motivation for some).
- ahoy 5y ago
  I see this notion a lot, that density decreases home values. Yet home prices are at their highest in our densest cities. I just don't buy it.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Walkable neighborhoods tend to be expensive and those where jobs are. If you just add apartment house to existing residential street, you achieve neither. Especially when zoning does not allows small shops to appear.
  - aeternum 5y ago
    Assuming you're right and increasing density somehow does not decrease home value/price in the densest cities, then how can up zoning/increasing density help alleviate the housing crisis? It's like saying 'We want to change the zoning to make housing more affordable but don't worry it won't make housing more affordable'.
    - cheriot 5y ago
      Because relaxed zoning increases the price of land and decreases the price of interior space. In the most expensive cities, it's the value of land that's going up. The houses themselves are often the same structures that housed the working class in the 50s.
2deep5me 5y ago
> This. Everything's equivalent. This. This.

aeternum 5y ago

I'm not sure it's even necessary to blame politicians with influence. Over the last few decades, we made home ownership a goal for the vast majority of the US populace. Now we expect those homeowners to vote against their own self-interest (to approve additional housing units/zoning).

cheriot 5y ago
Agree that voting blocks with influence are a big part of it. I don't think it's rational self-interest, though. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29784347 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29784347
- aeternum 5y ago
  Upzoning might increase land value but often decreases property value. In general supply and demand still functions, by increasing supply the price should decrease. What evidence is there that it is due to racism, classism and fear rather than rational self-interest?
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    Who says the two are exclusive? You can go to any US planning meeting and find at least one person who alludes to the wrong type of person moving in resulting in loss of "neighborhood character". Racist and classist concerns also influence property value. Blockbusting was a real estate practice that worked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting
  - cheriot 5y ago
    > Upzoning might increase land value but often decreases property value. Is there an example of where that happened? A developer building an apartment building can pay more than an owner occupant. The complaints from wealthy neighborhoods start with quality of life and degrade into questioning "what kind of people" will housing/transportation/amenities attract. I base this on listening to public meetings in SF / Bay Area so lots of local bias.
    - aeternum 5y ago
      Those selling the land to the developer profit but there are lots of examples in which home values around the new building decrease due to blocked views/shade/decreased privacy. From a societal POV we should be building higher density and the drawbacks are worth it, but it is also in the rational self-interest of those building neighbors to vote against the new development. NY has alleviated this somewhat by granting all existing landowners some air-rights that they can choose to sell to nearby highrises. Something like this might be the right way to go so that the nearby owners receive some recompense.
      - cheriot 5y ago
        The same laws that prevent mid size apartment buildings often prevent an existing home from being divided into a duplex or triplex. Why restrict the number of kitchens and exterior doors? For most single family exclusive neighborhoods, I don't think air rights are relevant. They don't want people with less money moving in. It's the same motivation as Marin County, CA and the Georgetown neighborhood of DC refusing train stops to "keep the riff raff out". The exclusion is the point.
        sokoloff 5y ago
        Traffic and parking concerns are legitimate gripes that I’ve heard (and I’m inclined to feel myself). I don’t care who lives next to me, because my interactions with them are limited to kindly waves as we pass on the sidewalk. If I couldn’t park my car anywhere near my house because the alternative timeline neighborhood had twice as many cars because it had twice as many kitchens and exterior doors, I’d be less satisfied with my neighborhood as compared to now where the parking is generally adequate except on street cleaning days. That’s got nothing whatsoever to do with who the other car owners are, how expensive the other cars are, or how rich they are. This is also some of where “each new residential lot needs X feet of frontage and Y parking spaces per unit” zoning laws come from. It’s not just “keep the poors out” (although that may be a secondary motivation for some).
ahoy 5y ago
I see this notion a lot, that density decreases home values. Yet home prices are at their highest in our densest cities. I just don't buy it.
- watwut 5y ago
  Walkable neighborhoods tend to be expensive and those where jobs are. If you just add apartment house to existing residential street, you achieve neither. Especially when zoning does not allows small shops to appear.
- aeternum 5y ago
  Assuming you're right and increasing density somehow does not decrease home value/price in the densest cities, then how can up zoning/increasing density help alleviate the housing crisis? It's like saying 'We want to change the zoning to make housing more affordable but don't worry it won't make housing more affordable'.
  - cheriot 5y ago
    Because relaxed zoning increases the price of land and decreases the price of interior space. In the most expensive cities, it's the value of land that's going up. The houses themselves are often the same structures that housed the working class in the 50s.

2deep5me 5y ago

> This. Everything's equivalent. This. This.