4 ms·

There are plans to up-zone large portions of the city I live in. Appended to every related article on the local newspaper’s website are dozens of comments about

There are plans to up-zone large portions of the city I live in. Appended to every related article on the local newspaper’s website are dozens of comments about how such a move is a scheme/payout for developers. But of course, who else is going to build sufficient housing? The real concern is not actually how much money someone else would make, but how much the current homeowners would have shaved off their selling prices.

tptacek 3y ago
Yes. There is a whole playbook of these arguments. Watch carefully and you'll pick up other ones. For instance: developers will announce new apartment buildings with some number of floors in them, and residents will organize around demands that 1-2 floors be removed from the proposal, knowing that most of these projects won't be viable (won't recoup within the required fixed time period for investors) with a whole floor of units removed.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Can developers not account for this and design as big as possible for their first plan, knowing they’ll have to scale it back? This reminds me of stories around adding hair to arms in graphic design so when you must make a change, you can remove the purposely sacrificial element incorporated into the original design. Not a fan of the adversarial nature of these zoning mechanics, but when in Rome. https://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364760847/whats-with-all-of-the-hairy-arms-in-graphic-design https://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364760847/whats-with-all-of-t...
  - tptacek 3y ago
    I assume it depends on the locale, but where I live at least there are challenges with this negotiating tactic Like many (most?) municipalities, our zoning codes were largely set in the mid-20th century, and were deliberately designed to prevent Black families from moving in by restricting multi-family development --- this was a direct response to the 1917 Buchanan decision that outlawed explicit racial zoning (prior to that decision, and to the Great Migration, SFZ was almost unheard of). What that means today is that any new apartment building will be built under a variance negotiated with the municipality; effectively, every new apartment building is done at the individualized discretion of the board. So you have a couple problems here: * There's a process by which these projects are introduced and endorsed to the board which doesn't include opportunities to put give-to-get proposals on the table. * It's probably not a good idea to play games with the board in the first place, since they have other things to do and there aren't really many stakeholders that will hold them to account if they accede to local NIMBYs and just kill a development. * It puts them in a weird position if their negotiating-position-bid is accepted.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Very helpful, thank you for the reply.
ajmurmann 3y ago
I recently realized that the general public only finds it acceptable to make money off ethically neutral things. Obviously you get resentment when you make your money from vice-related things like selling legal or illegal drugs, gambling, arms or sex work. But you also get pushback when you make money providing good things like healthcare, housing, or medication for a global pandemic killing millions. Capitalism/the invisible hand is only allowed to provide neutral things.
- rhyme-boss 3y ago
  Maybe there is wisdom in that. Capitalism should have a limited scope. It has a tendency towards uncapped influence.
- ambicapter 3y ago
  Probably because most people understand money will subvert ethics so the only ways to make money that don't create gigantic moral hazards are the ethically neutral ways.

tptacek 3y ago

Yes. There is a whole playbook of these arguments. Watch carefully and you'll pick up other ones. For instance: developers will announce new apartment buildings with some number of floors in them, and residents will organize around demands that 1-2 floors be removed from the proposal, knowing that most of these projects won't be viable (won't recoup within the required fixed time period for investors) with a whole floor of units removed.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Can developers not account for this and design as big as possible for their first plan, knowing they’ll have to scale it back? This reminds me of stories around adding hair to arms in graphic design so when you must make a change, you can remove the purposely sacrificial element incorporated into the original design. Not a fan of the adversarial nature of these zoning mechanics, but when in Rome. https://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364760847/whats-with-all-of-the-hairy-arms-in-graphic-design https://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364760847/whats-with-all-of-t...
- tptacek 3y ago
  I assume it depends on the locale, but where I live at least there are challenges with this negotiating tactic Like many (most?) municipalities, our zoning codes were largely set in the mid-20th century, and were deliberately designed to prevent Black families from moving in by restricting multi-family development --- this was a direct response to the 1917 Buchanan decision that outlawed explicit racial zoning (prior to that decision, and to the Great Migration, SFZ was almost unheard of). What that means today is that any new apartment building will be built under a variance negotiated with the municipality; effectively, every new apartment building is done at the individualized discretion of the board. So you have a couple problems here: * There's a process by which these projects are introduced and endorsed to the board which doesn't include opportunities to put give-to-get proposals on the table. * It's probably not a good idea to play games with the board in the first place, since they have other things to do and there aren't really many stakeholders that will hold them to account if they accede to local NIMBYs and just kill a development. * It puts them in a weird position if their negotiating-position-bid is accepted.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Very helpful, thank you for the reply.

ajmurmann 3y ago

I recently realized that the general public only finds it acceptable to make money off ethically neutral things. Obviously you get resentment when you make your money from vice-related things like selling legal or illegal drugs, gambling, arms or sex work. But you also get pushback when you make money providing good things like healthcare, housing, or medication for a global pandemic killing millions. Capitalism/the invisible hand is only allowed to provide neutral things.

rhyme-boss 3y ago
Maybe there is wisdom in that. Capitalism should have a limited scope. It has a tendency towards uncapped influence.
ambicapter 3y ago
Probably because most people understand money will subvert ethics so the only ways to make money that don't create gigantic moral hazards are the ethically neutral ways.