4 ms·

This has always seemed like a very weak argument, almost like a straw man that people believe in for some reason. Even intuitively, why would one expect that re

by amluto 4y ago

This has always seemed like a very weak argument, almost like a straw man that people believe in for some reason. Even intuitively, why would one expect that reducing land use restrictions would devalue land? But let’s try actual, if low quality, numbers: Houses near Atherton, in Menlo Park, seem to sell for around $500k-$1M per 1000 sq ft of lot size. That’s $500 - $1000 per sq ft lot. Houses in Atherton, supposed home of very expensive homes, seem to sell for around $10M per acre of lot. (Yes, Atherton is so fancy that it uses different units in Zillow!). That’s about $230 per sq ft of land. In other words, Menlo Park (not exactly a paragon of high density and unrestricted land use) has 2x-4x the land value per unit area of Atherton. So those NIMBYs who actually want to extract dollar value from their property should support less restrictive land use! edit: of course this is the value of random houses plus their lots. I expect the effect would be more pronounced if the houses were removed — those Atherton houses tend to be quite fancy.

metadat 4y ago
If it were really about money, you'd be correct. It's really about control, though. The whole point of Atherton is privacy- the property owners don't want other living human beings within earshot.
- amluto 4y ago
  …which one can achieve fairly well by owning a huge piece of land and building in the middle of it. In any case, this may be what Andreesen is thinking, but it’s not what he wrote.
ac29 4y ago
> Houses in Atherton, supposed home of very expensive homes, seem to sell for around $10M per acre of lot. (Yes, Atherton is so fancy that it uses different units in Zillow!). That’s about $230 per sq ft of land. It should be noted that the zoning rules in Atherton require a minimum lot size of 1 Acre per home. Thinking of it in terms of square feet lets you compare it to nearby towns somewhat, but misses that building say two houses per acre (1/2 acre lots) is illegal there.
- amluto 4y ago
  Computing land value per square foot isn’t missing something — this is the whole point. Atherton has a land use restriction that depresses property values. (Under SB9, one can likely split a 1 acre lot once. I imagine that Atherton would try to block such a split.)

by amluto 4y ago

metadat 4y ago

If it were really about money, you'd be correct. It's really about control, though. The whole point of Atherton is privacy- the property owners don't want other living human beings within earshot.

amluto 4y ago
…which one can achieve fairly well by owning a huge piece of land and building in the middle of it. In any case, this may be what Andreesen is thinking, but it’s not what he wrote.

ac29 4y ago

> Houses in Atherton, supposed home of very expensive homes, seem to sell for around $10M per acre of lot. (Yes, Atherton is so fancy that it uses different units in Zillow!). That’s about $230 per sq ft of land. It should be noted that the zoning rules in Atherton require a minimum lot size of 1 Acre per home. Thinking of it in terms of square feet lets you compare it to nearby towns somewhat, but misses that building say two houses per acre (1/2 acre lots) is illegal there.

amluto 4y ago
Computing land value per square foot isn’t missing something — this is the whole point. Atherton has a land use restriction that depresses property values. (Under SB9, one can likely split a 1 acre lot once. I imagine that Atherton would try to block such a split.)