3 ms·

> 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 (

by 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
  - bombcar 3y ago
    People have a really hard time admitting there are negative externalities to density. Some may be small, all may be worth it, but they do exist. And straight up cash can make many go away either in the form of reduced taxes, improved services, a new park, etc.
tristor 3y ago
> 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”. The quiet part nobody wants to say out loud is that the NIMBYs aren't opposed to construction to make their house value go up, it's to keep it from going down. Nobody wants the undeveloped land in their subdivision to get turned into a landfill or chemical processing plant. Nobody wants a collection of SFHs bought up, bulldozed, and replaced by mid-rise apartments that will be part of an "affordable housing project" (which is a euphemism for rent-subsidized government housing). Nobody wants the strip mall down the street replaced with a homeless shelter. What people don't want is a nice place to live turned into a place where they and their family get exposed to environmental toxins, crime, poverty, and violence. This also has the side-effect of lowering property values, but that's not why anyone cares for the most part, it's that they /LIVE THERE/ and don't want to live near squalor and desperation.
- ericmay 3y ago
  Well if that’s all they’re worried about then they’re in luck! Density doesn’t fit the description you are giving here (chemical plants, homeless camps, etc.)
renewiltord 3y ago
Sure. No one says "I want the value of my house to go up" but everyone says "This plot near my home shouldn't be an apartment block. It should be a park". Ideally, for those who believe this, their house is solo on a block and then around it is nothing but parks paid for by other taxpayers.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
germinalphrase 3y ago
Over here in Minneapolis, an apartment building went up about ten years ago, and a certain very vocal segment of the neighborhood vehemently believed that it would destroy their homes’ value (with vague innuendo about what kind of people live in apartments and take the light rail to work). No such thing actually happened, of course.

by gretch 3y ago

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
- bombcar 3y ago
  People have a really hard time admitting there are negative externalities to density. Some may be small, all may be worth it, but they do exist. And straight up cash can make many go away either in the form of reduced taxes, improved services, a new park, etc.

tristor 3y ago

> 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”. The quiet part nobody wants to say out loud is that the NIMBYs aren't opposed to construction to make their house value go up, it's to keep it from going down. Nobody wants the undeveloped land in their subdivision to get turned into a landfill or chemical processing plant. Nobody wants a collection of SFHs bought up, bulldozed, and replaced by mid-rise apartments that will be part of an "affordable housing project" (which is a euphemism for rent-subsidized government housing). Nobody wants the strip mall down the street replaced with a homeless shelter. What people don't want is a nice place to live turned into a place where they and their family get exposed to environmental toxins, crime, poverty, and violence. This also has the side-effect of lowering property values, but that's not why anyone cares for the most part, it's that they /LIVE THERE/ and don't want to live near squalor and desperation.

ericmay 3y ago
Well if that’s all they’re worried about then they’re in luck! Density doesn’t fit the description you are giving here (chemical plants, homeless camps, etc.)

renewiltord 3y ago

Sure. No one says "I want the value of my house to go up" but everyone says "This plot near my home shouldn't be an apartment block. It should be a park". Ideally, for those who believe this, their house is solo on a block and then around it is nothing but parks paid for by other taxpayers.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

germinalphrase 3y ago

Over here in Minneapolis, an apartment building went up about ten years ago, and a certain very vocal segment of the neighborhood vehemently believed that it would destroy their homes’ value (with vague innuendo about what kind of people live in apartments and take the light rail to work). No such thing actually happened, of course.