3 ms·
Another way to say "this will destroy land value" is "this will lower housing prices". That's the point. But reality is more nuanced than that; the cost/value
by raldi 4y ago
Another way to say "this will destroy land value" is "this will lower housing prices". That's the point.
But reality is more nuanced than that; the cost/value of apartments will go down, but the cost/value of single-family houses will go up, as there will be interest in buying the latter and turning it into the former. Land values will go up; rent and condo prices will go down.
- rcme 4y agoNo, that's not what I'm saying at all. "Destroy land value" doesn't mean lower housing prices, or at least lower in a productive way. Imagine you have some land and then the city builds a dump next to the land. That destroys the value of the land because no one wants to live there anymore. Housing prices are a second-order effect based off of the land value and the availability of housing units. The new policy in California's purpose is to increase housing units, but has the potential to destroy the value of the land.
- raldi 4y agoMultifamily housing is not analogous to a garbage dump. "The study finds that the upzoning increased property values by 15-23%" http://theadvocatecornell.com/2022/02/03/does-upzoning-work/ http://theadvocatecornell.com/2022/02/03/does-upzoning-work/
- rcme 4y agoAgain, I'm not saying that multi-family housing is akin to a garbage dump. I fully support more housing. But, the state officials making these decisions have no incentive to ensure that they're preserving the land's value. Any system that doesn't provide incentives for the decision makers to make good decisions ends terribly.
- Ztynovovk 4y ago[dead]