2 ms·

But building enough housing won't happen because people rationally conclude it's in their best interests. It will happen when the decision-making levers are rem

by adolph 4y ago

But building enough housing won't happen because people rationally conclude it's in their best interests. It will happen when the decision-making levers are removed from local government. I don't understand why "enough housing" can't be in people's best interests. Removing voice in local decisions will not increase loyalty.

tptacek 4y ago
There are too many countervailing forces. People are loss-averse and disengaged from local policy; they only peek out when they get wind of some aspect of their lifestyle being threatened, and their natural response is to say "no changes, further study required". They don't have the time or the energy to think through the long term issues. They're concerned about their property value. Or they're concerned about parking. Or they're concerned that there's too much parking. Or they're concerned that utilities buildout will raise their taxes. Or they're concerned about shade. Or they're concerned about crime. Or they're concerned about noise. You can keep rattling them off, and the point is that everyone's got a different set of idiosyncratic issues and so, as an advocate for development, you've got a bursting dam of random public opinion to push back against, and it's just a nightmare. The result is that almost everything in wealthy suburbs is SFZ, because there's never concentrated objections to SFZ, but there's organically concentrated objections to multi-family zoning even if people don't actively work to coordinate it. It won't fix itself, you can't advocate or educate your way out of it. It's a powerful default that just naturally works to keep the most valuable/useful real estate in the country reserved for sprawling houses for wealthy people. It's easy to say "no" and risky to say "yes", so everyone says "no" to new development. Hence the current proposal du jour (which I buy into): stop letting municipalities cordon off all their lots for SFZ, at the state level, where nobody's specifix ox is getting gored by policy decisions, which can be made in the abstract and in advance. I kind of don't give a shit about Atherton zoning. No zoning rule is going to make Atherton economically diverse. If Atherton wants to exempt itself from statewide multifamily zoning requirements, it could simply be taxed dearly for the privilege. The residents there can afford it.

by adolph 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

There are too many countervailing forces. People are loss-averse and disengaged from local policy; they only peek out when they get wind of some aspect of their lifestyle being threatened, and their natural response is to say "no changes, further study required". They don't have the time or the energy to think through the long term issues. They're concerned about their property value. Or they're concerned about parking. Or they're concerned that there's too much parking. Or they're concerned that utilities buildout will raise their taxes. Or they're concerned about shade. Or they're concerned about crime. Or they're concerned about noise. You can keep rattling them off, and the point is that everyone's got a different set of idiosyncratic issues and so, as an advocate for development, you've got a bursting dam of random public opinion to push back against, and it's just a nightmare. The result is that almost everything in wealthy suburbs is SFZ, because there's never concentrated objections to SFZ, but there's organically concentrated objections to multi-family zoning even if people don't actively work to coordinate it. It won't fix itself, you can't advocate or educate your way out of it. It's a powerful default that just naturally works to keep the most valuable/useful real estate in the country reserved for sprawling houses for wealthy people. It's easy to say "no" and risky to say "yes", so everyone says "no" to new development. Hence the current proposal du jour (which I buy into): stop letting municipalities cordon off all their lots for SFZ, at the state level, where nobody's specifix ox is getting gored by policy decisions, which can be made in the abstract and in advance. I kind of don't give a shit about Atherton zoning. No zoning rule is going to make Atherton economically diverse. If Atherton wants to exempt itself from statewide multifamily zoning requirements, it could simply be taxed dearly for the privilege. The residents there can afford it.