6 ms·

Cities don't vote, people do. I own a single family home in the Palo Alto. If I wanted to living in a city like Paris, I would. I like it here. I don't care a

Cities don't vote, people do. I own a single family home in the Palo Alto. If I wanted to living in a city like Paris, I would. I like it here. I don't care about the price of my house, since I do not plan to sell it this decade. I care a TON about my neighborhood. I love that my neighborhood is quiet, not crowded, and has easy parking. I will vote against any proposals or elected officials who represent me that would make that worse. I get I represent NIMBY-ism, but these tradeoffs are real. I often see people strawman them like there are easy/obvious solutions to shared problems. There aren't.

ceeplusplus 4y ago
The easy solution is that your quality of life should not infringe on the rights of millions of people to housing that doesn't cost 90% of their monthly income to pay for. And the state is going to drag local cities kicking and screaming to where we need to go, like it or not. I make well into 6 figures a year and I can't buy a shack in Fremont because of people like you.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  It's more afforable compared to an apartment in New York where a townhouse can set you back 15 million. Density isn't the issue demand is. You want to live in a place everyone else does. At 1.3 million on average you could buy 100a property on prime farmland or you could buy an apartment in New York or a house in Freemont. Wanting Freemont to be zoned like New York property would probably make it more popular with new hot properities and it will price you out further. The truth is there are a lot of people making more money who want housing in Freemont.
  - ceeplusplus 4y ago
    Funnily enough buying a house close enough to work in NYC is actually cheaper, because Jersey City is viable and NY/NJ don't have Prop 13 to inflate property values. I could buy a 5bdr luxury home in a nice area with great schools in NYC in one of the outer boroughs or a high end luxury new construction in Jersey City. That same cash gets you a shack in a shitty part of the East Bay. > make it more popular with new hot properities and it will price you out further It's a common NIMBY misconception that adding more supply increases prices. Basic economics says this is obviously wrong. > The truth is there are a lot of people making more money who want housing in Freemont I'm pretty sure my income puts me in the top 10% of income in the Bay and definitely top 1% nationally. You're saying that less than 10% of the population should be able to purchase a starter home (what I mean by a shack). Do you not listen to what you're saying?
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      Average price in Freemont is 1.3 million. Top 1% nationwide is: 538,926 Top 10% in bay area: 534,600 If you make only 100k with no savings or partner you might be priced out of that 6000ft average home. Most people will buy as a couple, have a down payment and get help from parents which puts you at a disadvantage but it is still possible. No idea if a 5 bedroom NJ home is equal to a 3 bedroom 6000 ft home in Freemont. Not sure one location has more value. I would choose Freemont over NJ.
      - ceeplusplus 4y ago
        I see you are out of touch with the housing market. Zillow doesn't give an average but most of the homes listed in Fremont there are above $1.3M, more like 1.5-1.8M if you want something bigger than 1200 sqft. If you filter by >1500 sqft everything starts at 1.5M+. So no, there's no 6000sqft "average" home, these are all starter homes averaging 1.5-1.8M. Then factor in that most houses get 100-200k over asking price during the insane bidding process. > If you make only 100k with no savings or partner you might be priced out of that 6000ft average home. Most people will buy as a couple, have a down payment and get help from parents which puts you at a disadvantage but it is still possible Do you listen to what you're saying? A top 10% earner in the region needs to buy as a couple and get help from parents to afford a _starter home_? So everyone else that's under the 90th percentile is just screwed? > Top 1% nationwide is: 538,926 Top 10% in bay area: 534,600 90th percentile income in 2018 in the Bay was $384k [1]. Someone in the top 10% of incomes should not be struggling to afford a basic home with 3 bedrooms in a mediocre area. [1]: https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2020/01/31/bay-area-has-highest-income-inequality-california/4625295002/ https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2020/01/31/bay-are...
        ipaddr 4y ago
        http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Income-Inequality_3.10.21.pdf http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Inc... The Bay area numbers I gave are from 2021 source included. Here are some current prices: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Fremont_CA https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Fremont_CA The 1450+ feet one for 1.2 seems nice. The 760 one seems within reach. The prices are similiar around the world. 1.5-1.8 is the average house price in Toronto. If New York/NJ is under valued and you can get a similiar home for less I would probably make the move.
- hellisothers 4y ago
  Without knowing them exactly I imagine property owners actually do have rights in this situation. Where does the right “to housing that doesn’t cost 90% of their monthly income” come from?
sofixa 4y ago
- TimPC 4y ago
  I used to think most of NIMBY was shallow. Then my city tried to approve four simultaneous development projects in one city block near me. The projects had tower heights of more than double the zoning. The traffic studies ignored all other development in the area and assumed a much higher use of public transit then is reasonable for an area poorly served by public transit. There were numerous other issues. I think many people (including myself) are not opposed to all development and see the need to build condos even in our own areas. We just see the shit we are expected to swallow from developers and want them to do far better.
- zeruch 4y ago
  "Cities aren't loud, cars are" Happy city dweller here...no, cars are indeed loud, but so are cities. People, trains, the buzz of lights, the rumble of skateboards, chatter, endless motion at all hours, etc. That's part of the charm. "NIMBYs really are selfish and shallow people." Agreed.
- RestlessMind 4y ago
  > Your strawman arguments are quite poor. I found those arguments informative. > Cities aren't loud, cars are And. Bay Area neighborhoods will still be full of cars because public transportation is not going to materialize overnight. > Cars go into underground parking garages Then we add a restriction that any multi-family unit should come with an underground parking garage. Good luck seeing that through. > There, done. Not done, really. > but NIMBYs really are selfish and shallow people. In this thread, your arguments seem shallow to me without addressing any real concerns of the bay area homeowners. You seem to be selfishly imposing your political ideology without considering all the costs which you won't be incurring anyway.
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  > NIMBYs really are selfish and shallow people My parents bought a house in an almost-rural region of southern California in 1991. It was difficult to lose the beautiful field across the street when a housing development went in, but they shrugged their shoulders and moved on -- no biggie. But more recently, the tiny empty lot next to theirs has been sold and 3 really ugly apartments just went in that are totally out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. If they could have blocked this from happening, they would have -- and I don't think that's selfish NIMBYism. Your next-door neighbors' behavior affects your life profoundly, and when they do dumb stuff like building ugly, stuffed-in apartments that don't fit in with the houses next door, it will affect you negatively. All to say, NIMBYism gets a bad rap, but having a basic standard of caring about the quality of one's neighborhood (especially next-door lots) isn't selfish or shallow. By extension, you'd have to say it's "selfish and shallow" to pay more to not live in a bad part of town... is it really?
jandrese 4y ago
It's a tough problem to solve when you need to house 70,000 people per square mile (similar to Manhattan) in order to not leave people on the street, but also not allow more than 6,000 people (San Francisco) per square mile.
itissid 4y ago
> my neighborhood is quiet I have lived in areas with only single family dwellings(Tempe AZ, density 5,203 people per square mile.) and in areas with high rises(Hoboken NJ, density 41,038 people per square mile) and I can attest that most noise is from the cars on the main roads of the city, which largely depends on urban design, e.g. Hoboken has only 2 main arterial roads(Washington Street and Observer Highway) which excludes most of the noise from the interiors. > not crowded By what metric? I can walk my dog outside easily, travel easily in the train to manhattan, and get reservations to any restaurant on the day in Hoboken. I don't think most places are as crazy crowded as Manhattan (Brooklyn, Queen and Bronx are much lower density) where the dynamics are different because work and tourism. Are most single family zoned places in California work building heavy areas and touristy destinations? > easy parking. I can find parking for ~200$ per month here. So it is kind of expensive, i'll give you that.
- arbor_day 4y ago
  I think my use of "quiet" and "crowd" was not very clear. For me quiet is the absence of hustle and bustle. When I down my street, I'll see at most 1-2 people out and about. To me, that's a more relaxing environment than even the best urban environments where I'll see dozens of people. Unless I live next to a major road/highway, the occasional car noise is less bothersome to me personally than noise from people. To me car noise feels like white background noise, but voices trigger some active part of my brain. I'm not arguing that's a completely rational way to feel / belief, but it totally how I feel.
MoosePirate 4y ago
This is why the only real solution is to not have total local control of zoning. Given the choice, many will vote to restrict what other people around them can do with their property to benefit their own interests - financial, quality of life, etc. While externalizing the costs (higher housing costs, pollution, etc) across a large number of people who aren't allowed a vote. Hoping people will do otherwise isn't going to get results. But given that the zoning impacts have just as big an impact on the low-paid worker who has to commute hours to the local hospital to work, it is entirely reasonable to allow those impacted parties a vote by moving zoning away from total local control up to a larger level. Recent legislative steps in CA are a move in the right direction, but need to go much farther to create more meaningful changes. Basically, if you want a quiet neighborhood with large plots of land, you should be required to bear the full cost of that, rather than voting to externalize the majority of those costs across the larger population.
- arbor_day 4y ago
  FWIW, I am happy to pay a premium for the living situation I want. I do that today across high housing costs / taxes / cost of local goods/services. I'd happily support paying for other externalities (e.g. carbon taxes).
  - sershe 4y ago
    The premium would be really large though. The difference is only in degree between current zoning and something like "I have a nice view from my window and therefore my neighbors should not be allowed to build up the 2nd floor or plant trees in a way that would block it, and nobody should be allowed to build tall buildings in downtown between me and the mountains". The current zoning just happens to be status quo. Both unreasonably restrict what others can do with their property, and the only fair way to really "pay the premium" to enforce either is to buy the land (or at least, pay some large fraction of market rent, to offset the loss that owner incurs by not e.g. building and renting out more units). Well that or NIMBYism, which is a nicer name for regulatory capture, i.e. corruption.

ceeplusplus 4y ago

The easy solution is that your quality of life should not infringe on the rights of millions of people to housing that doesn't cost 90% of their monthly income to pay for. And the state is going to drag local cities kicking and screaming to where we need to go, like it or not. I make well into 6 figures a year and I can't buy a shack in Fremont because of people like you.

ipaddr 4y ago
It's more afforable compared to an apartment in New York where a townhouse can set you back 15 million. Density isn't the issue demand is. You want to live in a place everyone else does. At 1.3 million on average you could buy 100a property on prime farmland or you could buy an apartment in New York or a house in Freemont. Wanting Freemont to be zoned like New York property would probably make it more popular with new hot properities and it will price you out further. The truth is there are a lot of people making more money who want housing in Freemont.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  Funnily enough buying a house close enough to work in NYC is actually cheaper, because Jersey City is viable and NY/NJ don't have Prop 13 to inflate property values. I could buy a 5bdr luxury home in a nice area with great schools in NYC in one of the outer boroughs or a high end luxury new construction in Jersey City. That same cash gets you a shack in a shitty part of the East Bay. > make it more popular with new hot properities and it will price you out further It's a common NIMBY misconception that adding more supply increases prices. Basic economics says this is obviously wrong. > The truth is there are a lot of people making more money who want housing in Freemont I'm pretty sure my income puts me in the top 10% of income in the Bay and definitely top 1% nationally. You're saying that less than 10% of the population should be able to purchase a starter home (what I mean by a shack). Do you not listen to what you're saying?
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Average price in Freemont is 1.3 million. Top 1% nationwide is: 538,926 Top 10% in bay area: 534,600 If you make only 100k with no savings or partner you might be priced out of that 6000ft average home. Most people will buy as a couple, have a down payment and get help from parents which puts you at a disadvantage but it is still possible. No idea if a 5 bedroom NJ home is equal to a 3 bedroom 6000 ft home in Freemont. Not sure one location has more value. I would choose Freemont over NJ.
    - ceeplusplus 4y ago
      I see you are out of touch with the housing market. Zillow doesn't give an average but most of the homes listed in Fremont there are above $1.3M, more like 1.5-1.8M if you want something bigger than 1200 sqft. If you filter by >1500 sqft everything starts at 1.5M+. So no, there's no 6000sqft "average" home, these are all starter homes averaging 1.5-1.8M. Then factor in that most houses get 100-200k over asking price during the insane bidding process. > If you make only 100k with no savings or partner you might be priced out of that 6000ft average home. Most people will buy as a couple, have a down payment and get help from parents which puts you at a disadvantage but it is still possible Do you listen to what you're saying? A top 10% earner in the region needs to buy as a couple and get help from parents to afford a _starter home_? So everyone else that's under the 90th percentile is just screwed? > Top 1% nationwide is: 538,926 Top 10% in bay area: 534,600 90th percentile income in 2018 in the Bay was $384k [1]. Someone in the top 10% of incomes should not be struggling to afford a basic home with 3 bedrooms in a mediocre area. [1]: https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2020/01/31/bay-area-has-highest-income-inequality-california/4625295002/ https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2020/01/31/bay-are...
      - ipaddr 4y ago
        http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Income-Inequality_3.10.21.pdf http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Inc... The Bay area numbers I gave are from 2021 source included. Here are some current prices: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Fremont_CA https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Fremont_CA The 1450+ feet one for 1.2 seems nice. The 760 one seems within reach. The prices are similiar around the world. 1.5-1.8 is the average house price in Toronto. If New York/NJ is under valued and you can get a similiar home for less I would probably make the move.
hellisothers 4y ago
Without knowing them exactly I imagine property owners actually do have rights in this situation. Where does the right “to housing that doesn’t cost 90% of their monthly income” come from?

sofixa 4y ago

TimPC 4y ago
I used to think most of NIMBY was shallow. Then my city tried to approve four simultaneous development projects in one city block near me. The projects had tower heights of more than double the zoning. The traffic studies ignored all other development in the area and assumed a much higher use of public transit then is reasonable for an area poorly served by public transit. There were numerous other issues. I think many people (including myself) are not opposed to all development and see the need to build condos even in our own areas. We just see the shit we are expected to swallow from developers and want them to do far better.
zeruch 4y ago
"Cities aren't loud, cars are" Happy city dweller here...no, cars are indeed loud, but so are cities. People, trains, the buzz of lights, the rumble of skateboards, chatter, endless motion at all hours, etc. That's part of the charm. "NIMBYs really are selfish and shallow people." Agreed.
RestlessMind 4y ago
> Your strawman arguments are quite poor. I found those arguments informative. > Cities aren't loud, cars are And. Bay Area neighborhoods will still be full of cars because public transportation is not going to materialize overnight. > Cars go into underground parking garages Then we add a restriction that any multi-family unit should come with an underground parking garage. Good luck seeing that through. > There, done. Not done, really. > but NIMBYs really are selfish and shallow people. In this thread, your arguments seem shallow to me without addressing any real concerns of the bay area homeowners. You seem to be selfishly imposing your political ideology without considering all the costs which you won't be incurring anyway.
TimTheTinker 4y ago
> NIMBYs really are selfish and shallow people My parents bought a house in an almost-rural region of southern California in 1991. It was difficult to lose the beautiful field across the street when a housing development went in, but they shrugged their shoulders and moved on -- no biggie. But more recently, the tiny empty lot next to theirs has been sold and 3 really ugly apartments just went in that are totally out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. If they could have blocked this from happening, they would have -- and I don't think that's selfish NIMBYism. Your next-door neighbors' behavior affects your life profoundly, and when they do dumb stuff like building ugly, stuffed-in apartments that don't fit in with the houses next door, it will affect you negatively. All to say, NIMBYism gets a bad rap, but having a basic standard of caring about the quality of one's neighborhood (especially next-door lots) isn't selfish or shallow. By extension, you'd have to say it's "selfish and shallow" to pay more to not live in a bad part of town... is it really?

jandrese 4y ago

It's a tough problem to solve when you need to house 70,000 people per square mile (similar to Manhattan) in order to not leave people on the street, but also not allow more than 6,000 people (San Francisco) per square mile.

itissid 4y ago

> my neighborhood is quiet I have lived in areas with only single family dwellings(Tempe AZ, density 5,203 people per square mile.) and in areas with high rises(Hoboken NJ, density 41,038 people per square mile) and I can attest that most noise is from the cars on the main roads of the city, which largely depends on urban design, e.g. Hoboken has only 2 main arterial roads(Washington Street and Observer Highway) which excludes most of the noise from the interiors. > not crowded By what metric? I can walk my dog outside easily, travel easily in the train to manhattan, and get reservations to any restaurant on the day in Hoboken. I don't think most places are as crazy crowded as Manhattan (Brooklyn, Queen and Bronx are much lower density) where the dynamics are different because work and tourism. Are most single family zoned places in California work building heavy areas and touristy destinations? > easy parking. I can find parking for ~200$ per month here. So it is kind of expensive, i'll give you that.

arbor_day 4y ago
I think my use of "quiet" and "crowd" was not very clear. For me quiet is the absence of hustle and bustle. When I down my street, I'll see at most 1-2 people out and about. To me, that's a more relaxing environment than even the best urban environments where I'll see dozens of people. Unless I live next to a major road/highway, the occasional car noise is less bothersome to me personally than noise from people. To me car noise feels like white background noise, but voices trigger some active part of my brain. I'm not arguing that's a completely rational way to feel / belief, but it totally how I feel.

MoosePirate 4y ago

This is why the only real solution is to not have total local control of zoning. Given the choice, many will vote to restrict what other people around them can do with their property to benefit their own interests - financial, quality of life, etc. While externalizing the costs (higher housing costs, pollution, etc) across a large number of people who aren't allowed a vote. Hoping people will do otherwise isn't going to get results. But given that the zoning impacts have just as big an impact on the low-paid worker who has to commute hours to the local hospital to work, it is entirely reasonable to allow those impacted parties a vote by moving zoning away from total local control up to a larger level. Recent legislative steps in CA are a move in the right direction, but need to go much farther to create more meaningful changes. Basically, if you want a quiet neighborhood with large plots of land, you should be required to bear the full cost of that, rather than voting to externalize the majority of those costs across the larger population.

arbor_day 4y ago
FWIW, I am happy to pay a premium for the living situation I want. I do that today across high housing costs / taxes / cost of local goods/services. I'd happily support paying for other externalities (e.g. carbon taxes).
- sershe 4y ago
  The premium would be really large though. The difference is only in degree between current zoning and something like "I have a nice view from my window and therefore my neighbors should not be allowed to build up the 2nd floor or plant trees in a way that would block it, and nobody should be allowed to build tall buildings in downtown between me and the mountains". The current zoning just happens to be status quo. Both unreasonably restrict what others can do with their property, and the only fair way to really "pay the premium" to enforce either is to buy the land (or at least, pay some large fraction of market rent, to offset the loss that owner incurs by not e.g. building and renting out more units). Well that or NIMBYism, which is a nicer name for regulatory capture, i.e. corruption.