5 ms·

I like the author's approach, as this problem really comes down to one of various interest groups and their interests and incentives. In the U.S., we subsidize

I like the author's approach, as this problem really comes down to one of various interest groups and their interests and incentives. In the U.S., we subsidize home ownership through mortgage interest tax breaks and various other legislation and we treat homes as investments. Naturally then, most homeowners will want to continue to push for anything that increases the value of that investment and oppose anything that decreases it (e.g. building more housing). It will be interesting to see how California's approach to this problem plays out. We have had local regulations and NIMBY groups forestall new construction/denser housing, but the state pushed through legislation to forcibly override those local blockers. Incentives should now be aligned for builders to build, but local homeowners will continue to fight against it because their incentives are not aligned.

Syonyk 3y ago
California is also facing a net reduction in population in the past few years (around half a million total - that counts births, deaths, people moving in, people moving out - the state's absolute population has gone down the past two years). Eventually, problems do solve themselves. One way or another. It just may not be in the desired way.
- prottog 3y ago
  > Eventually, problems do solve themselves. One way or another. As Keynes said, in the long run, we are all dead. It would be nice to solve some of these problems within our lifetimes.
- scythe 3y ago
  LA (metro) saw a decadal growth of just 2.9% — total — from 2010 to 2020. That's less than half the national average, and well below many cheap cities. Zoom out to the combined statistical area (including SB/Riverside) and it only goes up to 4.2%. Yet it hasn't gotten significantly cheaper. Stopping growth does not imply achieving affordability on a reasonable timescale. Over several decades, maybe. But letting pain solve problems usually requires more than people realize it will take.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Housing has gone down in nominal dollars only a few years in the last century. Even if nothing else improved regulations and the cost of construction would lead to higher prices. Mayhap the best we can do is ensure supply is more than adequate and wages rise accordingly.
- epistasis 3y ago
  I don't think the problem is solving itself, it's just playing out in the expected way of the problem. Where this heads is towards unaffordability for those running the basics of society, from sewers and utilities to healthcare and retail and shipping. Which will result in greater dysfunction, even if there is still some level of functionality. The future that California is heading towards is far higher levels of homelessness, in far more areas, even as there is massive wealth. It is towards a more dystopian future.
gretch 3y ago
> Naturally then, most homeowners will want to continue to push for anything that increases the value of that investment and oppose anything that decreases it (e.g. building more housing). The example is commonly cited, but it’s irrational (though that doesn’t mean people don’t do it). Developed denser areas are higher value than sparse rural ones. For example, if the area around your house suddenly became New York and you owned a SFH sized lot in Manhattan, you’d be rich. There are many nimby groups opposed to construction, but hardly ever have I seen it due to being “I want the value of my house to go up”. Source: I own a house in the Bay Area and talk to my neighbors about what they think.
- millimeterman 3y ago
  In the very long term, yes a large plot of land in a densely-constructed city would be extremely valuable. In the short and medium-term though, the downward price pressure of increased supply outweighs the upward price pressure of amenity effects.[1][2][3] Very few NIMBYs will openly admit to wanting to maintain their property values because it's a much less noble sounding cause than "preserving the character of the neighborhood" or whatever. 1. https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=up_workingpapers https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334... 2. https://blocksandlots.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Do-New-Housing-Units-in-Your-Backyard-Raise-Your-Rents-Xiaodi-Li.pdf https://blocksandlots.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Do-New-... 3. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3867764 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3867764
  - gretch 3y ago
    I looked at the cited papers and accept the presented economic dynamics. But I still do not accept that it is a predominant motivation for why people are nimby. When I talk to my neighbors, I just do not get a sense of “oh yeah this dude is actually trying to maximize land value”. I see people just trying to have a decent life and raise a family. All these comments that allude to “quiet part out loud” or whatever seriously sound like conspiracy theories to me. Call me naive, but the folks in my neighborhood are not a cabal of real estate moguls. Though, yes, some are nimby
millimeterman 3y ago
> We have had local regulations and NIMBY groups forestall new construction/denser housing, but the state pushed through legislation to forcibly override those local blockers. Incentives should now be aligned for builders to build, but local homeowners will continue to fight against it because their incentives are not aligned. California has only made a few tiny steps toward allowing construction. They are good steps, don't get me wrong, but there is still a very long way to go before California can even begin to catch up on its decades of under-building.

Syonyk 3y ago

California is also facing a net reduction in population in the past few years (around half a million total - that counts births, deaths, people moving in, people moving out - the state's absolute population has gone down the past two years). Eventually, problems do solve themselves. One way or another. It just may not be in the desired way.

prottog 3y ago
> Eventually, problems do solve themselves. One way or another. As Keynes said, in the long run, we are all dead. It would be nice to solve some of these problems within our lifetimes.
scythe 3y ago
LA (metro) saw a decadal growth of just 2.9% — total — from 2010 to 2020. That's less than half the national average, and well below many cheap cities. Zoom out to the combined statistical area (including SB/Riverside) and it only goes up to 4.2%. Yet it hasn't gotten significantly cheaper. Stopping growth does not imply achieving affordability on a reasonable timescale. Over several decades, maybe. But letting pain solve problems usually requires more than people realize it will take.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Housing has gone down in nominal dollars only a few years in the last century. Even if nothing else improved regulations and the cost of construction would lead to higher prices. Mayhap the best we can do is ensure supply is more than adequate and wages rise accordingly.
epistasis 3y ago
I don't think the problem is solving itself, it's just playing out in the expected way of the problem. Where this heads is towards unaffordability for those running the basics of society, from sewers and utilities to healthcare and retail and shipping. Which will result in greater dysfunction, even if there is still some level of functionality. The future that California is heading towards is far higher levels of homelessness, in far more areas, even as there is massive wealth. It is towards a more dystopian future.

gretch 3y ago

> Naturally then, most homeowners will want to continue to push for anything that increases the value of that investment and oppose anything that decreases it (e.g. building more housing). The example is commonly cited, but it’s irrational (though that doesn’t mean people don’t do it). Developed denser areas are higher value than sparse rural ones. For example, if the area around your house suddenly became New York and you owned a SFH sized lot in Manhattan, you’d be rich. There are many nimby groups opposed to construction, but hardly ever have I seen it due to being “I want the value of my house to go up”. Source: I own a house in the Bay Area and talk to my neighbors about what they think.

millimeterman 3y ago
In the very long term, yes a large plot of land in a densely-constructed city would be extremely valuable. In the short and medium-term though, the downward price pressure of increased supply outweighs the upward price pressure of amenity effects.[1][2][3] Very few NIMBYs will openly admit to wanting to maintain their property values because it's a much less noble sounding cause than "preserving the character of the neighborhood" or whatever. 1. https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=up_workingpapers https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334... 2. https://blocksandlots.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Do-New-Housing-Units-in-Your-Backyard-Raise-Your-Rents-Xiaodi-Li.pdf https://blocksandlots.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Do-New-... 3. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3867764 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3867764
- gretch 3y ago
  I looked at the cited papers and accept the presented economic dynamics. But I still do not accept that it is a predominant motivation for why people are nimby. When I talk to my neighbors, I just do not get a sense of “oh yeah this dude is actually trying to maximize land value”. I see people just trying to have a decent life and raise a family. All these comments that allude to “quiet part out loud” or whatever seriously sound like conspiracy theories to me. Call me naive, but the folks in my neighborhood are not a cabal of real estate moguls. Though, yes, some are nimby

millimeterman 3y ago

> We have had local regulations and NIMBY groups forestall new construction/denser housing, but the state pushed through legislation to forcibly override those local blockers. Incentives should now be aligned for builders to build, but local homeowners will continue to fight against it because their incentives are not aligned. California has only made a few tiny steps toward allowing construction. They are good steps, don't get me wrong, but there is still a very long way to go before California can even begin to catch up on its decades of under-building.