7 ms·

The solution is to decrease the power of hyper-local interests whose incentives do not align with those of the broader polity. Small cities and even neighborhoo

The solution is to decrease the power of hyper-local interests whose incentives do not align with those of the broader polity. Small cities and even neighborhoods benefit from regional economic growth but would rather their distant neighbors pay the cost for it in terms of density. That's a recipe for dysfunction.

ilikehurdles 4y ago
“Hyper-local interests” (your neighborhood) face all the direct negative consequences of the policies that “broader polity” attempts to force upon them.
- lazide 4y ago
  Removing the ability to have ‘hyper local interests’ means everywhere within the given ‘zone’ this is being done in is going to be similar, or at least under the same set of rules. Which pretty much means similar, eventually. When rules have real concrete impacts that help or hurt one group over another (which is impossible to not happen), of course different groups are going to fight for or against it based on how they’re currently benefiting or not from it. The push for removing zoning laws in broad strokes seems to be between the established current residents vs folks who WANT to be residents/or get established. Which is cool and all, though if the desired area is currently ‘exclusive’ (which most nice areas are, the exclusivity is what allows them to push out what they don’t want, even if it offends someone), it’s hard to not see that this will destroy that exclusivity. Which will often destroy or largely alter the character of that place. Atherton isn’t going to be Atherton (or why folks who like Atherton consider Atherton so nice), if every lot could be subdivided to high density condos, for instance. Removing the ability to stop that would certainly allow a lot more people to live in Atherton, but it’s not like we have a shortage of actually livable space anywhere in California, or the US. We do have a shortage of space where people want to live/be right now, but that is inevitable no matter what we do - and a lot of the high demand areas are because of the existing exclusive rules More people want to be in the ‘place to be’ more than the ‘middle of nowhere’ (or close to jobs not in a place with no jobs, or in a place with beautiful views instead of the middle of a wasteland, etc!) and that creates a demand gradient where the most in demand places are always more in demand than they have supply, assuming supply is less than infinite, which is almost always is for real estate. If it’s ‘exclusive’, that generally means even more restricted supply. Harvard only allows so many students, for instance, and it’s not because they could not actually teach more to some standard. Making it so Harvard has to admit anyone who applies means Harvard isn’t going to be exclusive anymore, and that’s going to change what Harvard is and means a huge amount pretty quick.
  - zip1234 4y ago
    The argument may make sense at a 'hyper local' level but be bad overall. Everywhere is trying to prevent the next level down from getting into their area. At a high level this means economic segregation enforced by the government. A very working class suburb near me has a bunch of neighbors trying to prevent an apartment complex on the site of a former K-Mart. It is not an exclusive area, but the same arguments are being applied.
  - ambrozk 4y ago
    Demand for housing in Atherton isn't high because Atherton's rules made Atherton nice. If Atherton allowed high-density condos to be built, demand for housing in Atherton would not decline at all, because Atherton's "character" has very little impact on its desirability. Demand for housing in Atherton is high because of its location, full stop, and its location is attractive because Bay Area residents started businesses in cities adjacent to Atherton, and because Bay Area taxpayers built a Caltrain stop in Atherton. People who own property in Atherton have massively benefitted from their proximity to the tech world, while refusing to contribute to housing its workers. Atherton houses 13x fewer people per unit area than San Francisco. Its landowners are like Hacienda ranchers, or feudal lords given exclusive rights by the government to manage profitable land to their own benefit, at the expense of the peasants who actually make that land valuable. Fuck their exclusivity.
    - lazide 4y ago
      Have you ever been to Atherton? Or East Palo Alto? Because what you are saying does not match the reality I've seen on the ground, or what appears to be the emotional content of the reaction you posted.
      - ambrozk 4y ago
        In what sense does it not match? The emotional content of my reaction is anger at the obscene hording of space by a privileged minority who benefit from the productive behavior of their neighbors and contribute nothing in return. The average home price in Atherton is $8.1M. There are 7,000 people there, benefitting enormously from the wealth generated by tech. But they won't build more homes. And they will sue to stop the Caltrain from being electrified because they don't think converting a diesel train to electric is "environmentally safe." I lived nearby Atherton for some time, and it made my life, and the lives of my friends and family worse. I think it's a selfish municipality and I don't respect its ethic.
- jacobolus 4y ago
  The current setup is (indirectly) a massive subsidy from poor neighborhoods -> rich neighborhoods.
zip1234 4y ago
Or increase the power of hyper local--down to the individual property ;)

ilikehurdles 4y ago

“Hyper-local interests” (your neighborhood) face all the direct negative consequences of the policies that “broader polity” attempts to force upon them.

lazide 4y ago
Removing the ability to have ‘hyper local interests’ means everywhere within the given ‘zone’ this is being done in is going to be similar, or at least under the same set of rules. Which pretty much means similar, eventually. When rules have real concrete impacts that help or hurt one group over another (which is impossible to not happen), of course different groups are going to fight for or against it based on how they’re currently benefiting or not from it. The push for removing zoning laws in broad strokes seems to be between the established current residents vs folks who WANT to be residents/or get established. Which is cool and all, though if the desired area is currently ‘exclusive’ (which most nice areas are, the exclusivity is what allows them to push out what they don’t want, even if it offends someone), it’s hard to not see that this will destroy that exclusivity. Which will often destroy or largely alter the character of that place. Atherton isn’t going to be Atherton (or why folks who like Atherton consider Atherton so nice), if every lot could be subdivided to high density condos, for instance. Removing the ability to stop that would certainly allow a lot more people to live in Atherton, but it’s not like we have a shortage of actually livable space anywhere in California, or the US. We do have a shortage of space where people want to live/be right now, but that is inevitable no matter what we do - and a lot of the high demand areas are because of the existing exclusive rules More people want to be in the ‘place to be’ more than the ‘middle of nowhere’ (or close to jobs not in a place with no jobs, or in a place with beautiful views instead of the middle of a wasteland, etc!) and that creates a demand gradient where the most in demand places are always more in demand than they have supply, assuming supply is less than infinite, which is almost always is for real estate. If it’s ‘exclusive’, that generally means even more restricted supply. Harvard only allows so many students, for instance, and it’s not because they could not actually teach more to some standard. Making it so Harvard has to admit anyone who applies means Harvard isn’t going to be exclusive anymore, and that’s going to change what Harvard is and means a huge amount pretty quick.
- zip1234 4y ago
  The argument may make sense at a 'hyper local' level but be bad overall. Everywhere is trying to prevent the next level down from getting into their area. At a high level this means economic segregation enforced by the government. A very working class suburb near me has a bunch of neighbors trying to prevent an apartment complex on the site of a former K-Mart. It is not an exclusive area, but the same arguments are being applied.
- ambrozk 4y ago
  Demand for housing in Atherton isn't high because Atherton's rules made Atherton nice. If Atherton allowed high-density condos to be built, demand for housing in Atherton would not decline at all, because Atherton's "character" has very little impact on its desirability. Demand for housing in Atherton is high because of its location, full stop, and its location is attractive because Bay Area residents started businesses in cities adjacent to Atherton, and because Bay Area taxpayers built a Caltrain stop in Atherton. People who own property in Atherton have massively benefitted from their proximity to the tech world, while refusing to contribute to housing its workers. Atherton houses 13x fewer people per unit area than San Francisco. Its landowners are like Hacienda ranchers, or feudal lords given exclusive rights by the government to manage profitable land to their own benefit, at the expense of the peasants who actually make that land valuable. Fuck their exclusivity.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Have you ever been to Atherton? Or East Palo Alto? Because what you are saying does not match the reality I've seen on the ground, or what appears to be the emotional content of the reaction you posted.
    - ambrozk 4y ago
      In what sense does it not match? The emotional content of my reaction is anger at the obscene hording of space by a privileged minority who benefit from the productive behavior of their neighbors and contribute nothing in return. The average home price in Atherton is $8.1M. There are 7,000 people there, benefitting enormously from the wealth generated by tech. But they won't build more homes. And they will sue to stop the Caltrain from being electrified because they don't think converting a diesel train to electric is "environmentally safe." I lived nearby Atherton for some time, and it made my life, and the lives of my friends and family worse. I think it's a selfish municipality and I don't respect its ethic.
jacobolus 4y ago
The current setup is (indirectly) a massive subsidy from poor neighborhoods -> rich neighborhoods.

zip1234 4y ago

Or increase the power of hyper local--down to the individual property ;)