4 ms·

I would mention that it may actually cause property values to go up for single family homeowners. Reason being a developer would have the ability to buy the who

by djg321 4y ago

I would mention that it may actually cause property values to go up for single family homeowners. Reason being a developer would have the ability to buy the whole property and build an apartment building. Each apartment may cost less than the house that was there before, but the value of property together (land + apartment building + individual units) is sure to cost more than when only a single home was on it. Condo owners, on the other hand, would see the value of their units decrease with the extra competing supply. This, of course, being one of the benefits of YIMBYism for everyone else (increases affordability).

nonford150 4y ago
Others, though, see increased higher density housing as more traffic, increased crowding in existing schools, and lowering property values. At least in the US, higher density housing in the surburbs is seen as a negative, even if there may be some benefits, however nebulous.
kcplate 4y ago
> I would mention that it may actually cause property values to go up for single family homeowners. This is an exception more than a rule, and generally only for specific areas that might be gentrifying or for home owners in very old properties that might border a larger land area a developer might buy. And then you always have holdouts which could spoil the deal, which leads to IMO one of the most evil government things there is in the US in modern times—eminent domain
- rcme 4y ago
  Eminent domain is amazing. It should be used more often. The key is that the people whose property is being taken should be fairly compensated.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    What’s “fair”? Who gets to chose that number? The developer? The government that stands to gain from larger tax revenue from the same property? Sorry it’s a purely evil thing. Specifically designed to rid poor people of property to enrich the pockets of wealthier people. Hell, Donald Trump was the biggest cheerleader of its use in the ‘90s.

by djg321 4y ago

nonford150 4y ago

Others, though, see increased higher density housing as more traffic, increased crowding in existing schools, and lowering property values. At least in the US, higher density housing in the surburbs is seen as a negative, even if there may be some benefits, however nebulous.

kcplate 4y ago

> I would mention that it may actually cause property values to go up for single family homeowners. This is an exception more than a rule, and generally only for specific areas that might be gentrifying or for home owners in very old properties that might border a larger land area a developer might buy. And then you always have holdouts which could spoil the deal, which leads to IMO one of the most evil government things there is in the US in modern times—eminent domain

rcme 4y ago
Eminent domain is amazing. It should be used more often. The key is that the people whose property is being taken should be fairly compensated.
- kcplate 4y ago
  What’s “fair”? Who gets to chose that number? The developer? The government that stands to gain from larger tax revenue from the same property? Sorry it’s a purely evil thing. Specifically designed to rid poor people of property to enrich the pockets of wealthier people. Hell, Donald Trump was the biggest cheerleader of its use in the ‘90s.