4 ms·

It's not that mysterious why people want this. For people of means, they want to preserve the quality of life that they see in having mostly single family homes

by rnk 4y ago

It's not that mysterious why people want this. For people of means, they want to preserve the quality of life that they see in having mostly single family homes and in the past keep it full of white people with money, hopefully the only whites thing has faded. Of course racism was a core issue in how these exclusions panned out in the US. If I'm in a city and and I own one of these houses, it's clear economically that wanting to limit building multi-unit housing near me enhances the value growth of my property - because you can't build nearly as many SFH as you can apartments. I'm sure racism and fear of the other is still an issue (I'm from the south, I know it's an issue based on personal experience) but it's far more economic imho today. The end result is the same, people want to hold on to what they see as part of their "intrinsic value" in their neighborhood setup.

hervature 4y ago
> it's clear economically that wanting to limit building multi-unit housing near me enhances the value growth of my property This argument never made sense for me. Being able to put more units in the same space drastically increases the value of the land. It of course reduces the value of other things like having towering buildings around your 2 story home which blocks your view. In this sense, home owners need to turn to zoning to prevent that despite it being detrimental to their land value.
- kccqzy 4y ago
  They have a different argument, namely by making sure houses are less dense, the total number of houses being built in an area is far less than what the land can support, leading to artificial scarcity in the market. The artificially limited supply then leads to high prices.
  - hervature 4y ago
    Restricting supply obviously increases prices. That's economics 101. Their claim is that they are doing it precisely for economic gains. Whereas I'm saying that it is actually not about the economic gains because they are giving up economic value (much higher land value) in order to preserve non-economic things (neighborhood, view, etc.). My point is that an acre of land in the center of Manhattan is worth a lot of money. That value goes drastically down if something prevents you from building above 35 feet.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  It lowers your house price but may increase the value of the land that has been sliced up.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zajio1am 4y ago
There is evidence that opposition to new construction is not only from home-owners, but also from renters, due to economic ignorance: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/11/the-folk-economics-of-housing-is-folked-up.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/11/th...
- Tiktaalik 4y ago
  I think the renters are often acting rationally, given the fact that new construction is so overwhelmingly often directed at their own neighbourhoods where they currently live in affordable apartments. Accordingly no real surprise that someone would act out of self interest to oppose being evicted. So rarely if ever is new apartment development targeted at a mansion district, and I've never seen an apartment dweller oppose that concept. I don't know why they would and I wouldn't expect them to.
Tiktaalik 4y ago
I dunno why this is being downvoted because in my experience this is spot on, and I've heard such things from my neighbours. (maybe people are uncomfortable with the truth spoken so plainly) Most of all people want exclusivity. Only having a handful of neighbours is something that is hard to buy. It's easier enforced through regulation. Established neighbourhoods push for regulations to keep people out. In the past it absolutely was for racist reasons. Today more likely economic ones. Apartments means renters which means less wealthy people. Exclusive detached home areas are pretty much guaranteed to have a high floor of wealth.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > I dunno why this is being downvoted People don't like to be casually accused of racism when there are other perfectly reasonable explanations.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by rnk 4y ago

hervature 4y ago

> it's clear economically that wanting to limit building multi-unit housing near me enhances the value growth of my property This argument never made sense for me. Being able to put more units in the same space drastically increases the value of the land. It of course reduces the value of other things like having towering buildings around your 2 story home which blocks your view. In this sense, home owners need to turn to zoning to prevent that despite it being detrimental to their land value.

kccqzy 4y ago
They have a different argument, namely by making sure houses are less dense, the total number of houses being built in an area is far less than what the land can support, leading to artificial scarcity in the market. The artificially limited supply then leads to high prices.
- hervature 4y ago
  Restricting supply obviously increases prices. That's economics 101. Their claim is that they are doing it precisely for economic gains. Whereas I'm saying that it is actually not about the economic gains because they are giving up economic value (much higher land value) in order to preserve non-economic things (neighborhood, view, etc.). My point is that an acre of land in the center of Manhattan is worth a lot of money. That value goes drastically down if something prevents you from building above 35 feet.
ipaddr 4y ago
It lowers your house price but may increase the value of the land that has been sliced up.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

zajio1am 4y ago

There is evidence that opposition to new construction is not only from home-owners, but also from renters, due to economic ignorance: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/11/the-folk-economics-of-housing-is-folked-up.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/11/th...

Tiktaalik 4y ago
I think the renters are often acting rationally, given the fact that new construction is so overwhelmingly often directed at their own neighbourhoods where they currently live in affordable apartments. Accordingly no real surprise that someone would act out of self interest to oppose being evicted. So rarely if ever is new apartment development targeted at a mansion district, and I've never seen an apartment dweller oppose that concept. I don't know why they would and I wouldn't expect them to.

Tiktaalik 4y ago

I dunno why this is being downvoted because in my experience this is spot on, and I've heard such things from my neighbours. (maybe people are uncomfortable with the truth spoken so plainly) Most of all people want exclusivity. Only having a handful of neighbours is something that is hard to buy. It's easier enforced through regulation. Established neighbourhoods push for regulations to keep people out. In the past it absolutely was for racist reasons. Today more likely economic ones. Apartments means renters which means less wealthy people. Exclusive detached home areas are pretty much guaranteed to have a high floor of wealth.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> I dunno why this is being downvoted People don't like to be casually accused of racism when there are other perfectly reasonable explanations.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]