5 ms·

> gets hijacked by wealthy people to stop things like needed housing from going into their neighborhood. Everything for inducing the demand and reducing the su

> gets hijacked by wealthy people to stop things like needed housing from going into their neighborhood. Everything for inducing the demand and reducing the supply. The invisible hand of extracting values at all cost.

pfannkuchen 2y ago
I don’t think wealthy people are thinking too much about their property values when it comes to opposing building in their own neighborhoods. They want to maintain the social prestige they have from living somewhere fancy and they want to keep the poors away from their home.
- PreachSoup 2y ago
  > social prestige they have from living somewhere fancy and they want to keep the poors away from their home. Value doesn't only mean monetary value. Social prestige is one of the values too. And sometimes they are transferable. The invisible hand is not just about the literal money
- deprecative 2y ago
  Doesn't that seem to implicitly state that property values are precisely what they're thinking about when trying to keep the poors away? If the poors are able to move in then the value of the property must be inexpensive for them to be able to.
  - silisili 2y ago
    I've lived in two areas that this has happened, and will try to word it gently but honestly. The neighborhood was nice, low traffic, never lock your doors(so to speak). In comes 'low income housing', ie jamming as many terrible apartment complexes as they could wherever they could. Traffic shot way up, too much for the roads. Why would the developer care. Noise also shot up, constant noises of bass from cars at all hours. Lastly, crime shot up. I went from living almost in the middle of nowhere to having my car broken into twice in my own driveway. Sorry all, I agree that housing is a crisis, but I no longer want dense housing anywhere near me.
    - LoganDark 2y ago
      I wish normal housing were more affordable instead. Also, low-income housing sort of sucks. For example, in my area, some low-income apartments were recently constructed, but they do not have washer and dryer receptacles. It's not that they aren't included. You cannot even bring your own, because you won't have anything to hook them up to. Apparently, you are supposed to use the laundromat only. But now that people with low income can live there, suddenly my complex no longer has to worry about those people, because the availability of the low-income apartments reduces the amount of people who would even consider living here. Suddenly, you're not losing potential customers by raising the price, because all the customers that you would have been losing are now all living in the low-income apartments instead. That hurts people like me who have a higher standard of living (such as owning a washer and dryer) but still don't exactly make enough money to justify spending $2,000 a month for a two-bedroom apartment (ours is currently around $1,800). I suppose I'm the customer they'd be losing by raising the price, but the risk to them is probably still far lower now.
      - silisili 2y ago
        Great points. I've often thought the most underserved group wrt housing are the working lower middle class. Which is weird, because that's how I grew up. We had tiny houses(5 of us in a house < 900sqft), but in decent blue collar neighborhoods where everyone was respectful and getting by. That just doesn't exist much today. You either spend more than you can afford to live with upper middle class in a house two sizes too big, or you live in shared low income apartments. They just don't build small SFH neighborhoods anymore, apparently.
        mlrtime 2y ago
        They 100% do, just not where most people want to live. I know many midwest cities with newly built small houses. Maybe not <900 sq feet. But 3-4 family bedroom houses at around 1500 sq feet. These houses are basic and inexpensive. You won't get much land either but may get a neighborhood park.
        2y ago
  - mlrtime 2y ago
    This isn't difficult to understand. Nobody that I know actually thinks "I like this neighborhood, I hope poor people don't come". 1. When you save your whole life for a downpayment and buy a house, you want it to at least KEEP it's value, nobody wants to buy a house and lose money. That is common sense. 2. People generally move to areas they desire for reasons. They want to also keep this the same or improve. They don't want it to deteriorate. So now we can debate what lowers values (nominal terms) and what causes areas to be undesirable and how they get there. What I can think of: Increases in crime, Dropping maintenance/services, increased pollution, increased noise, increased traffic etc... Nowhere above has anything to do with "poors".
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- pjc50 2y ago
  > They want to maintain the social prestige they have from living somewhere fancy and they want to keep the poors away from their home. .. which they will literally state in terms of property value.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    I don't think property value is the root of it. Rather, property value is the polite face they put on it, while their real concern is things like crime, whether it be petty vandalism and litter or more serious crime. It might not be fair for them to associate low income housing with crime, but I think this association is intuitively obvious to many if not most of the rich people living in exclusive neighborhoods.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      While there may be some material value to a property, as the saying goes: Location, location, location. In other words, it is the things like crime that ultimately define a property's value. That is why property value decline is of concern to property owners. It is all the same at the end of the day.
    - chucksta 2y ago
      You don't think people in low income areas are concerned about crime in their neighborhoods?
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        I didn't say that, did I? Why do you believe I think that?
        chucksta 2y ago
        TBF you didn't say it - It appeared that way if you followed the logic at the time regarding the gp you responded to two posts up about keeping poors away.
    - 2y ago

pfannkuchen 2y ago

I don’t think wealthy people are thinking too much about their property values when it comes to opposing building in their own neighborhoods. They want to maintain the social prestige they have from living somewhere fancy and they want to keep the poors away from their home.

PreachSoup 2y ago
> social prestige they have from living somewhere fancy and they want to keep the poors away from their home. Value doesn't only mean monetary value. Social prestige is one of the values too. And sometimes they are transferable. The invisible hand is not just about the literal money
deprecative 2y ago
Doesn't that seem to implicitly state that property values are precisely what they're thinking about when trying to keep the poors away? If the poors are able to move in then the value of the property must be inexpensive for them to be able to.
- silisili 2y ago
  I've lived in two areas that this has happened, and will try to word it gently but honestly. The neighborhood was nice, low traffic, never lock your doors(so to speak). In comes 'low income housing', ie jamming as many terrible apartment complexes as they could wherever they could. Traffic shot way up, too much for the roads. Why would the developer care. Noise also shot up, constant noises of bass from cars at all hours. Lastly, crime shot up. I went from living almost in the middle of nowhere to having my car broken into twice in my own driveway. Sorry all, I agree that housing is a crisis, but I no longer want dense housing anywhere near me.
  - LoganDark 2y ago
    I wish normal housing were more affordable instead. Also, low-income housing sort of sucks. For example, in my area, some low-income apartments were recently constructed, but they do not have washer and dryer receptacles. It's not that they aren't included. You cannot even bring your own, because you won't have anything to hook them up to. Apparently, you are supposed to use the laundromat only. But now that people with low income can live there, suddenly my complex no longer has to worry about those people, because the availability of the low-income apartments reduces the amount of people who would even consider living here. Suddenly, you're not losing potential customers by raising the price, because all the customers that you would have been losing are now all living in the low-income apartments instead. That hurts people like me who have a higher standard of living (such as owning a washer and dryer) but still don't exactly make enough money to justify spending $2,000 a month for a two-bedroom apartment (ours is currently around $1,800). I suppose I'm the customer they'd be losing by raising the price, but the risk to them is probably still far lower now.
    - silisili 2y ago
      Great points. I've often thought the most underserved group wrt housing are the working lower middle class. Which is weird, because that's how I grew up. We had tiny houses(5 of us in a house < 900sqft), but in decent blue collar neighborhoods where everyone was respectful and getting by. That just doesn't exist much today. You either spend more than you can afford to live with upper middle class in a house two sizes too big, or you live in shared low income apartments. They just don't build small SFH neighborhoods anymore, apparently.
      - mlrtime 2y ago
        They 100% do, just not where most people want to live. I know many midwest cities with newly built small houses. Maybe not <900 sq feet. But 3-4 family bedroom houses at around 1500 sq feet. These houses are basic and inexpensive. You won't get much land either but may get a neighborhood park.
        2y ago
- mlrtime 2y ago
  This isn't difficult to understand. Nobody that I know actually thinks "I like this neighborhood, I hope poor people don't come". 1. When you save your whole life for a downpayment and buy a house, you want it to at least KEEP it's value, nobody wants to buy a house and lose money. That is common sense. 2. People generally move to areas they desire for reasons. They want to also keep this the same or improve. They don't want it to deteriorate. So now we can debate what lowers values (nominal terms) and what causes areas to be undesirable and how they get there. What I can think of: Increases in crime, Dropping maintenance/services, increased pollution, increased noise, increased traffic etc... Nowhere above has anything to do with "poors".
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
pjc50 2y ago
> They want to maintain the social prestige they have from living somewhere fancy and they want to keep the poors away from their home. .. which they will literally state in terms of property value.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  I don't think property value is the root of it. Rather, property value is the polite face they put on it, while their real concern is things like crime, whether it be petty vandalism and litter or more serious crime. It might not be fair for them to associate low income housing with crime, but I think this association is intuitively obvious to many if not most of the rich people living in exclusive neighborhoods.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    While there may be some material value to a property, as the saying goes: Location, location, location. In other words, it is the things like crime that ultimately define a property's value. That is why property value decline is of concern to property owners. It is all the same at the end of the day.
  - chucksta 2y ago
    You don't think people in low income areas are concerned about crime in their neighborhoods?
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      I didn't say that, did I? Why do you believe I think that?
      - chucksta 2y ago
        TBF you didn't say it - It appeared that way if you followed the logic at the time regarding the gp you responded to two posts up about keeping poors away.
  - 2y ago