4 ms·

There's no big secret here. Dump restrictive zoning requirements, remove subjective approval processes, and make the permitting process a "shall approve" instea

There's no big secret here. Dump restrictive zoning requirements, remove subjective approval processes, and make the permitting process a "shall approve" instead of "may approve", and you'll see a lot of new housing get built very quickly. All the slowdowns and immense extra expenses are self-inflicted by city residents who either don't care, don't want cheaper housing, or have been infected by the terminally brainless anti-housing pseudo-left.

o11c 3y ago
The problem with "shall approve" is that sometimes the best answer really is "no". A lot of ecological disasters are averted by processes that seem long and drawn out, but which actually are just companies not understanding that "no, we don't want you to burn down the planet around us". Residential is obviously somewhat different, but not entirely.
- crooked-v 3y ago
  "Ecological disasters" is covered by putting in objective instead of subjective rules. The point is to make objections like "doesn't fit neighborhood character" / "blocks the view" / "would replace this extremely historic run-down laundromat" hold no weight in the process.
- epistasis 3y ago
  The environmental cost of saying "no" to denser housing on land that is already developed is extremely high, and leads to development on green fields where there is nobody to oppose the development. There should be an automatic "yes" to any mixed use housing and small retail development that is infill, from an environmental perspective. There should be an automatic "no" to any greenfield development, additional parking, or freeways. And to get over that "no" there should be strong environmental studies that show benefit, not just neutrality. Our existing built environment is unsustainable and needs to change drastically. Keeping it in the current state is untenable. We should be radically reshaping it as fast as possible with the fewest brakes if we care about the environment.
thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
The restrictive zoning practices, long approval processes ridiculous permitting costs etc are in place because most people's entire net worth is held up in housing and they vote for laws that keep the price high for that reason. It's completely backwards to think that the reason why housing is expensive is because of those symptoms when the root cause is more than half the population wants mega high housing costs.
- losteric 3y ago
  If height limits were raised with zoning for multi family housing, those investments would sky rocket faster than under NIMBY
  - thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
    And yet here we are
  - nradov 3y ago
    Despite the uniformed nonsense you might read here, the most active NIMBYs aren't primarily motivated by property values. If you actually talk to them you'll find that they have no wish to ever sell and are worried (sometimes irrationally) about quality of life issues: noise, parking, traffic, crime, privacy, etc.
    - thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
      Tell me more about how they don't care about their property value they are simply trying to uphold the character of the neighborhood. Really the property owners and landlords are the victims here.
      - beaeglebeached 3y ago
        Imagine you spend half your working class life saving for an absolute shit hole for half a million, knowing it's an NFT that no one can build more of. Then permitting laws are liberalized and suddenly your NFT is worth no more than the labor and material cost to physically build the house, minus depreciation. It's difficult because losing that NFT means they are fucked in retirement. Oh well for them, stupid them for wanting a house while nimby zoning was in effect. The losers unfortunately won't be the boomers that made the dumbass laws but the people they squeezed afterwards. It's a totally fucked situation.
m0llusk 3y ago
That is overly dismissive. Back in the post war era there was a huge problem with slum lords and corrupt builders constructing terrible residential units that were unlivable and began to fall apart as soon as tenants moved in. In response layers of requirements were added and regulators who had benign intentions went way too far. That all these rules would crash residential construction in the 1970s such that it would never recover was not foreseen at all.
- beaeglebeached 3y ago
  If the problem is such slumlords and builder profiteers they wouldn't have made it damn near impossible to be an unregulated owner builder for your families own homestead, but instead imposed those regulations only on the profiteers who wouldn't be living there. No, this is intentional. It was damn near impossible to find a place where a man can still build his own home near civilization without oversight.

o11c 3y ago

The problem with "shall approve" is that sometimes the best answer really is "no". A lot of ecological disasters are averted by processes that seem long and drawn out, but which actually are just companies not understanding that "no, we don't want you to burn down the planet around us". Residential is obviously somewhat different, but not entirely.

crooked-v 3y ago
"Ecological disasters" is covered by putting in objective instead of subjective rules. The point is to make objections like "doesn't fit neighborhood character" / "blocks the view" / "would replace this extremely historic run-down laundromat" hold no weight in the process.
epistasis 3y ago
The environmental cost of saying "no" to denser housing on land that is already developed is extremely high, and leads to development on green fields where there is nobody to oppose the development. There should be an automatic "yes" to any mixed use housing and small retail development that is infill, from an environmental perspective. There should be an automatic "no" to any greenfield development, additional parking, or freeways. And to get over that "no" there should be strong environmental studies that show benefit, not just neutrality. Our existing built environment is unsustainable and needs to change drastically. Keeping it in the current state is untenable. We should be radically reshaping it as fast as possible with the fewest brakes if we care about the environment.

thisgoesnowhere 3y ago

The restrictive zoning practices, long approval processes ridiculous permitting costs etc are in place because most people's entire net worth is held up in housing and they vote for laws that keep the price high for that reason. It's completely backwards to think that the reason why housing is expensive is because of those symptoms when the root cause is more than half the population wants mega high housing costs.

losteric 3y ago
If height limits were raised with zoning for multi family housing, those investments would sky rocket faster than under NIMBY
- thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
  And yet here we are
- nradov 3y ago
  Despite the uniformed nonsense you might read here, the most active NIMBYs aren't primarily motivated by property values. If you actually talk to them you'll find that they have no wish to ever sell and are worried (sometimes irrationally) about quality of life issues: noise, parking, traffic, crime, privacy, etc.
  - thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
    Tell me more about how they don't care about their property value they are simply trying to uphold the character of the neighborhood. Really the property owners and landlords are the victims here.
    - beaeglebeached 3y ago
      Imagine you spend half your working class life saving for an absolute shit hole for half a million, knowing it's an NFT that no one can build more of. Then permitting laws are liberalized and suddenly your NFT is worth no more than the labor and material cost to physically build the house, minus depreciation. It's difficult because losing that NFT means they are fucked in retirement. Oh well for them, stupid them for wanting a house while nimby zoning was in effect. The losers unfortunately won't be the boomers that made the dumbass laws but the people they squeezed afterwards. It's a totally fucked situation.

m0llusk 3y ago

That is overly dismissive. Back in the post war era there was a huge problem with slum lords and corrupt builders constructing terrible residential units that were unlivable and began to fall apart as soon as tenants moved in. In response layers of requirements were added and regulators who had benign intentions went way too far. That all these rules would crash residential construction in the 1970s such that it would never recover was not foreseen at all.

beaeglebeached 3y ago
If the problem is such slumlords and builder profiteers they wouldn't have made it damn near impossible to be an unregulated owner builder for your families own homestead, but instead imposed those regulations only on the profiteers who wouldn't be living there. No, this is intentional. It was damn near impossible to find a place where a man can still build his own home near civilization without oversight.