5 ms·

Without expressing either I like the policy or not, it means they buying a house in those cities no longer means buying a house in a neighborhood with a certain

Without expressing either I like the policy or not, it means they buying a house in those cities no longer means buying a house in a neighborhood with a certain feel. Historically changes happened, but we're confined to what the zone allowed. You have a quiet street? Street remains quiet, as there is only so much house that can be built next door. But with this the house next door can be torn down and a quadplex could be put in place. That is an extremely risky thing that home buyers need to consider when they're paying extra just to be in a certain part of the city.

goodluckchuck 3y ago
The risk is exacerbated by the piecemeal why in which this is occurring. The authority will generally only rezone the quadplex’s lot and not the whole neighborhood, leaving your home with the costs of greater density, but without the value of less restrictive zoning.
CubsFan1060 3y ago
I see you are getting downvoted, but I think you are right. People spend a lot of money finding a neighborhood and home they like. If you build next to a huge open field, you need to assume it could become anything. But if you build in a neighborhood that is built out, you like the feel of, and then it suddenly changes... that's a scary prospect.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  Unless you buy a home simply to rent it out to others, you need to be an active participant in its affairs. At the bare minimum, it means staying abreast in what’s going on. Any responsible homebuyer would have done their due diligence in at least asking the realtor what is the current trend of the local community, long before any papers are signed. Zoning law changes should never come as a “sudden” surprise, especially since they are universally a source of controversy.
  - CubsFan1060 3y ago
    I'm going to guess you might be young? People in my neighborhood have owned their houses for decades. Are you saying that someone buying a house in 1988 should have foreseen all the changes in the following 35 years?
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      If you’ve been living in the same neighborhood in 35 years you should be even more familiar with the changes going on to it, hell, you should even be an active participant in aiding or resisting change if you’re such a firmly-established local. There should be no surprises if you’ve been there since 1988. The talk of “suddenly changes” - which is the whole point of this subthread - does not apply to you.
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    And then 8 people show up at a city council meeting and set you on a path of financial ruin. The whole point of american government is that it shouldnt interfere with your life.
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      Local homeowners are an incredibly powerful bloc and have successfully thwarted development and upzoning in myriads of communities. The idea of “outside agitators” coming in and having the power to change your community is a specious, pernicious myth. It also undercuts the principles of American democracy. If you want things to stay exactly the way they are, then you must fight for it, you cannot expect others to do it for you.
      - kbolino 3y ago
        > The idea of “outside agitators” coming in and having the power to change your community is a specious, pernicious myth. Pessimistically, one could view the missions of HFH and and many HUD programs (esp. FHA) as exactly that. Every house built, bought, or renovated can affect change, and external assistance can tilt the changes. Ditto big developers coming in to "revitalize" urban areas. However, while I would agree that local government is still generally pretty answerable to local voters, state and federal grants and other "external" sources of money can and do alter their priorities. Changing demographics, esp. simple population growth, can attenuate or amplify various voting blocs over time. Most change happens very slowly at first, but then suddenly accelerates. No matter your politics, I think there are good examples of this. Whether it be poorer neighborhoods that suddenly get gentrified after decades of stability, pricing out families who've lived there for generations, or richer neighborhoods that suddenly get a low-cost complex built nearby to qualify for a grant or comply with a DOJ "consent agreement", the character of a neighborhood _can_ change quickly even if it generally _doesn't_. In these situations, the most that participating in local government will get you is advance warning, which is a lot less useful for the poorer example than the richer one.
- DoughnutHole 3y ago
  That itself is a product of current culture. Since the Second World War the expectation in most places is that cities and towns get built and then just grow with new permanent neighbourhoods. Nothing changes, the city just gets appended to. On the other hand someone living in New York City in 1900 would have no expectation of their area staying the same forever - things were constantly getting replaced because that was the culture of the the time - replace something old with something better. This is probably just a product of the car making it practical to throw up new far flung developments instead of modifying the development of existing dense areas.
  - barbazoo 3y ago
    Robert Caro’s “The power broker” talks about that for anyone looking for a quick read. Hundreds of thousands of people displaced for the “better” of the community.
- barbazoo 3y ago
  It is scary. But so what, it’s not that one bought the right to not have things change. If one doesn’t want things to change around them, they have to buy the land around them, easy as that. The market will fix take care of it.
raldi 3y ago
No, historically (as in, the rules that were in effect when all the beloved neighborhoods were created), if you wanted to built apartments, you could. In most American cities, that rule wasn’t changed until the 1970’s, when the Supreme Court ruled that you couldn’t overtly discriminate by race. So all the white neighborhoods switched to this indirect way to maintain the status quo.
- mlrtime 3y ago
  I'm not going to argue with the past because it's true and unfortunate. But what I don't like, and distracts from the debate, is that anyone that says they want to live on a quiet SFH street is a racist or "hates the pores". It is antagonizing and just pushes more people away from your cause.
  - raldi 3y ago
    There’s a difference between “if you like this policy, you’re a racist” and “this policy has historically harmed people of color”.
  - zozbot234 3y ago
    If you want to live in a quiet SFH while benefiting from the amenities of urban or suburban life then yes, you should understand that you're seeking some kind of exclusivity and not everyone will be able to afford that. There are plenty of quieter outlying areas where people can have their larger homes more cheaply, but at the cost of being more isolated and directly dependent on transportation.
- kbolino 3y ago
  It's not just about the status quo or racial homogeneity. Every time I've lived in multi-unit dwellings I have had to deal with the following problems caused by neighbors: 1. Smoking. Maybe not such a problem in a brand-new dwelling with well isolated HVAC but it is a serious problem in older construction with poorly isolated HVAC. The negative effects vary from one room being smoky sometimes (usually a bathroom) to the entire place being unlivable at certain times of day. 2. Loud noises late at night. This can be parties, heavy footfalls, old pipes that clang or ring, animals, etc. 3. Pets. Besides the noise, the animals can be aggressive and their owners may not clean up their waste. 4. Water damage. If you can't tear the place down to the studs and rafters, you can't get rid of mold. You can try to ask people to change, you can try to get the landlord involved, you can even get the cops involved. But it's a lot of hassle, it rarely fixes the problem long-term, and you will be seen as "that guy" who causes trouble.
maxerickson 3y ago
So a double policy win then?
flappyeagle 3y ago
So the risk needs to be priced in then? Lower housing prices? Yes please
- kbolino 3y ago
  I too want to see housing prices come down, but I think the only "safe" way to do it is to keep interest rates high. Setting aside recessions (and their undesirable/punitive effects), housing affordability seems to be inversely related to credit availability. I think this is explained primarily through two mechanisms: 1. compounding interest drastically penalizes higher principal amounts 2. at lower interest rates, debt is more advantageous than savings I'd argue that interest rates still aren't high enough yet, and they will need to stay high for a decade or more, in order for these mechanisms to really manifest virtuously. We had a great opportunity during the pandemic, when people weren't spending much, they were saving a lot, and they became more focused on taking care of themselves and considering their choices. Sadly, post-pandemic, we went on a ZIRP spree to try to "get the economy back on track" which did employ a bunch of people (for a little while anyway) but put us fiscally in a position even worse than before the pandemic.
icegreentea2 3y ago
I think it's an interesting question to ponder. If neighbourhood character was so important and valuable, what would be the fairest way to enforce/preserve it, while not hideously distorting the market? In other words, under the legacy zoning system, its true that buying into a neighbourhood basically gave you a decade+ guarantee on the character staying similar. And yes, the desirability translates into higher prices. Except that the higher prices only flow to the person selling the house (ie, the person who is LEAVING the neighborhood), and is highly concentrated. Where-as the negative externalities (reduced housing stock) are borne by everyone else. Yes, the extra value is reflected in property taxes, but I don't think that really reflects properly... and definitely isn't helping control housing costs. If a substantial portion of the neighbourhood character is coming from the zoning laws, then actually the people who are residing there are contributing just as much to the maintenance of that aspect as everyone else in the city. The people living in the neighbourhood are doing very little day to day to maintain that aspect of the neighbourhood they find attractive. In other words, the -city- is generating that value, not the people living there. Perhaps there could be a mechanism where-by the extra value of "locking down" a zone to SFH was instead redirected to other neighbourhoods? Differential property taxes based on zoning or lot density?
gniv 3y ago
This is a perceived risk only because of the status quo. You're almost arguing for a national or at least statewide zoning policy. This would make the "risk" uniform. I am now in France and this seems to be the case everywhere: multi-million euro villas next door to apartment complexes. Houses of all styles and with odd-shaped lots. Etc. This is the status quo here and nobody complains. And the prices are as high as in the US, if not higher.

goodluckchuck 3y ago

The risk is exacerbated by the piecemeal why in which this is occurring. The authority will generally only rezone the quadplex’s lot and not the whole neighborhood, leaving your home with the costs of greater density, but without the value of less restrictive zoning.

CubsFan1060 3y ago

I see you are getting downvoted, but I think you are right. People spend a lot of money finding a neighborhood and home they like. If you build next to a huge open field, you need to assume it could become anything. But if you build in a neighborhood that is built out, you like the feel of, and then it suddenly changes... that's a scary prospect.

Apocryphon 3y ago
Unless you buy a home simply to rent it out to others, you need to be an active participant in its affairs. At the bare minimum, it means staying abreast in what’s going on. Any responsible homebuyer would have done their due diligence in at least asking the realtor what is the current trend of the local community, long before any papers are signed. Zoning law changes should never come as a “sudden” surprise, especially since they are universally a source of controversy.
- CubsFan1060 3y ago
  I'm going to guess you might be young? People in my neighborhood have owned their houses for decades. Are you saying that someone buying a house in 1988 should have foreseen all the changes in the following 35 years?
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    If you’ve been living in the same neighborhood in 35 years you should be even more familiar with the changes going on to it, hell, you should even be an active participant in aiding or resisting change if you’re such a firmly-established local. There should be no surprises if you’ve been there since 1988. The talk of “suddenly changes” - which is the whole point of this subthread - does not apply to you.
- Geisterde 3y ago
  And then 8 people show up at a city council meeting and set you on a path of financial ruin. The whole point of american government is that it shouldnt interfere with your life.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    Local homeowners are an incredibly powerful bloc and have successfully thwarted development and upzoning in myriads of communities. The idea of “outside agitators” coming in and having the power to change your community is a specious, pernicious myth. It also undercuts the principles of American democracy. If you want things to stay exactly the way they are, then you must fight for it, you cannot expect others to do it for you.
    - kbolino 3y ago
      > The idea of “outside agitators” coming in and having the power to change your community is a specious, pernicious myth. Pessimistically, one could view the missions of HFH and and many HUD programs (esp. FHA) as exactly that. Every house built, bought, or renovated can affect change, and external assistance can tilt the changes. Ditto big developers coming in to "revitalize" urban areas. However, while I would agree that local government is still generally pretty answerable to local voters, state and federal grants and other "external" sources of money can and do alter their priorities. Changing demographics, esp. simple population growth, can attenuate or amplify various voting blocs over time. Most change happens very slowly at first, but then suddenly accelerates. No matter your politics, I think there are good examples of this. Whether it be poorer neighborhoods that suddenly get gentrified after decades of stability, pricing out families who've lived there for generations, or richer neighborhoods that suddenly get a low-cost complex built nearby to qualify for a grant or comply with a DOJ "consent agreement", the character of a neighborhood _can_ change quickly even if it generally _doesn't_. In these situations, the most that participating in local government will get you is advance warning, which is a lot less useful for the poorer example than the richer one.
DoughnutHole 3y ago
That itself is a product of current culture. Since the Second World War the expectation in most places is that cities and towns get built and then just grow with new permanent neighbourhoods. Nothing changes, the city just gets appended to. On the other hand someone living in New York City in 1900 would have no expectation of their area staying the same forever - things were constantly getting replaced because that was the culture of the the time - replace something old with something better. This is probably just a product of the car making it practical to throw up new far flung developments instead of modifying the development of existing dense areas.
- barbazoo 3y ago
  Robert Caro’s “The power broker” talks about that for anyone looking for a quick read. Hundreds of thousands of people displaced for the “better” of the community.
barbazoo 3y ago
It is scary. But so what, it’s not that one bought the right to not have things change. If one doesn’t want things to change around them, they have to buy the land around them, easy as that. The market will fix take care of it.

raldi 3y ago

No, historically (as in, the rules that were in effect when all the beloved neighborhoods were created), if you wanted to built apartments, you could. In most American cities, that rule wasn’t changed until the 1970’s, when the Supreme Court ruled that you couldn’t overtly discriminate by race. So all the white neighborhoods switched to this indirect way to maintain the status quo.

mlrtime 3y ago
I'm not going to argue with the past because it's true and unfortunate. But what I don't like, and distracts from the debate, is that anyone that says they want to live on a quiet SFH street is a racist or "hates the pores". It is antagonizing and just pushes more people away from your cause.
- raldi 3y ago
  There’s a difference between “if you like this policy, you’re a racist” and “this policy has historically harmed people of color”.
- zozbot234 3y ago
  If you want to live in a quiet SFH while benefiting from the amenities of urban or suburban life then yes, you should understand that you're seeking some kind of exclusivity and not everyone will be able to afford that. There are plenty of quieter outlying areas where people can have their larger homes more cheaply, but at the cost of being more isolated and directly dependent on transportation.
kbolino 3y ago
It's not just about the status quo or racial homogeneity. Every time I've lived in multi-unit dwellings I have had to deal with the following problems caused by neighbors: 1. Smoking. Maybe not such a problem in a brand-new dwelling with well isolated HVAC but it is a serious problem in older construction with poorly isolated HVAC. The negative effects vary from one room being smoky sometimes (usually a bathroom) to the entire place being unlivable at certain times of day. 2. Loud noises late at night. This can be parties, heavy footfalls, old pipes that clang or ring, animals, etc. 3. Pets. Besides the noise, the animals can be aggressive and their owners may not clean up their waste. 4. Water damage. If you can't tear the place down to the studs and rafters, you can't get rid of mold. You can try to ask people to change, you can try to get the landlord involved, you can even get the cops involved. But it's a lot of hassle, it rarely fixes the problem long-term, and you will be seen as "that guy" who causes trouble.

maxerickson 3y ago

So a double policy win then?

flappyeagle 3y ago

So the risk needs to be priced in then? Lower housing prices? Yes please

kbolino 3y ago
I too want to see housing prices come down, but I think the only "safe" way to do it is to keep interest rates high. Setting aside recessions (and their undesirable/punitive effects), housing affordability seems to be inversely related to credit availability. I think this is explained primarily through two mechanisms: 1. compounding interest drastically penalizes higher principal amounts 2. at lower interest rates, debt is more advantageous than savings I'd argue that interest rates still aren't high enough yet, and they will need to stay high for a decade or more, in order for these mechanisms to really manifest virtuously. We had a great opportunity during the pandemic, when people weren't spending much, they were saving a lot, and they became more focused on taking care of themselves and considering their choices. Sadly, post-pandemic, we went on a ZIRP spree to try to "get the economy back on track" which did employ a bunch of people (for a little while anyway) but put us fiscally in a position even worse than before the pandemic.

icegreentea2 3y ago

I think it's an interesting question to ponder. If neighbourhood character was so important and valuable, what would be the fairest way to enforce/preserve it, while not hideously distorting the market? In other words, under the legacy zoning system, its true that buying into a neighbourhood basically gave you a decade+ guarantee on the character staying similar. And yes, the desirability translates into higher prices. Except that the higher prices only flow to the person selling the house (ie, the person who is LEAVING the neighborhood), and is highly concentrated. Where-as the negative externalities (reduced housing stock) are borne by everyone else. Yes, the extra value is reflected in property taxes, but I don't think that really reflects properly... and definitely isn't helping control housing costs. If a substantial portion of the neighbourhood character is coming from the zoning laws, then actually the people who are residing there are contributing just as much to the maintenance of that aspect as everyone else in the city. The people living in the neighbourhood are doing very little day to day to maintain that aspect of the neighbourhood they find attractive. In other words, the -city- is generating that value, not the people living there. Perhaps there could be a mechanism where-by the extra value of "locking down" a zone to SFH was instead redirected to other neighbourhoods? Differential property taxes based on zoning or lot density?

gniv 3y ago

This is a perceived risk only because of the status quo. You're almost arguing for a national or at least statewide zoning policy. This would make the "risk" uniform. I am now in France and this seems to be the case everywhere: multi-million euro villas next door to apartment complexes. Houses of all styles and with odd-shaped lots. Etc. This is the status quo here and nobody complains. And the prices are as high as in the US, if not higher.