3 ms·

While there are a number of technical issues with respect to the limited trickle of multifamily permits that are given, the fundamental dynamic is that engaged

While there are a number of technical issues with respect to the limited trickle of multifamily permits that are given, the fundamental dynamic is that engaged voters don't want to see significantly more people living in the region, and therefore it doesn't happen.

cogman10 2y ago
Yeah, it has a lot to do with selfishness. More housing means more people means you have a lower property value for you home in the area. Further, it means your vote becomes less powerful as the poors that live in the high rise have the same voting power as you do in your single family home.
- amluto 2y ago
  I think it has a lot to do with people believing what you just said. Which is, of course, utter nonsense! If a neighborhood suddenly gets rezoned for 20-story mixed-use development, an existing house will be devalued, but an existing lot will likely gain more then enough value to compensate.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    > Which is, of course, utter nonsense! That doesn't change the loss of voting power. Further, value to who? I agree a 20 story high-rise has more value than a single-family home, but how does that help the single-family homeowner or the homeowners that live around the lot that gets rezoned? That's the problem. The existing homes and their owners seem mostly downsides to rezoning even though the city as a whole would benefit greatly from them.
    - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
      >That's the problem. The existing homes and their owners seem mostly downsides to rezoning even though the city as a whole would benefit greatly from them. That's only part of the problem, though. Homeowners are voting in their interest, and selfish or not, that's democracy. The other side of the coin is that the people who stand to benefit the most don't vote for policies or politicians that have their interests in mind. SF shows up in HN all the time for its NIMBYsm, but the city is mostly renters, whom could vote as a block like homeowners, and easily get more housing built. But they don't.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Is it selfish to have national parks when there are people that are homeless and the government could give them literally free land? Long ago the people that lived in the area realized that they liked where they lived and how it was, and voted to put in place rules to keep it that way. It sucks now, I and all my friends the grew up there were forced to move somewhere affordable, but it's not pure selfishness. They didn't take something away from someone else, no one else ever had it. And to expand it does inherently change the nature of what 'it' is and opens a genie that can NEVER be put back.
  - astrange 2y ago
    > Long ago the people that lived in the area realized that they liked where they lived and how it was Ignoring that there were probably Indians there - that wasn't "long ago", residential zoning was mostly introduced in the 30s-60s. America hasn't had zoning for most of its life! Most other countries have never had it and still don't. (Except every other Anglo country has an even /worse/ planning system than American residential zoning.)
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      Am I wrong to use when this issue started as the discussion starting point? Or are you agreeing that it is unfair to force a living situation change on a native population because other people want to move in or force their say about things? Zoning was introduced in the USA in 1904. The USA was 'urbanized' in 1920 the first time more Americans lived in cities than the rural countryside. Our zoning laws fit with the time period when we would develop things like... zoning laws. When my family moved to the Bay Area huge parts of it was fruit trees (with another large part being future superfund toxic waste dumps). If you were to drive (because they aren't designed for walking) along the 'Walmart strip' of any town in the USA I can't see how you can argue 'the USA has too strong of city planning'. Our growth is the stuff of ugly, out of control, unwalkable, car requiring nightmares.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

cogman10 2y ago

Yeah, it has a lot to do with selfishness. More housing means more people means you have a lower property value for you home in the area. Further, it means your vote becomes less powerful as the poors that live in the high rise have the same voting power as you do in your single family home.

amluto 2y ago
I think it has a lot to do with people believing what you just said. Which is, of course, utter nonsense! If a neighborhood suddenly gets rezoned for 20-story mixed-use development, an existing house will be devalued, but an existing lot will likely gain more then enough value to compensate.
- cogman10 2y ago
  > Which is, of course, utter nonsense! That doesn't change the loss of voting power. Further, value to who? I agree a 20 story high-rise has more value than a single-family home, but how does that help the single-family homeowner or the homeowners that live around the lot that gets rezoned? That's the problem. The existing homes and their owners seem mostly downsides to rezoning even though the city as a whole would benefit greatly from them.
  - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
    >That's the problem. The existing homes and their owners seem mostly downsides to rezoning even though the city as a whole would benefit greatly from them. That's only part of the problem, though. Homeowners are voting in their interest, and selfish or not, that's democracy. The other side of the coin is that the people who stand to benefit the most don't vote for policies or politicians that have their interests in mind. SF shows up in HN all the time for its NIMBYsm, but the city is mostly renters, whom could vote as a block like homeowners, and easily get more housing built. But they don't.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Is it selfish to have national parks when there are people that are homeless and the government could give them literally free land? Long ago the people that lived in the area realized that they liked where they lived and how it was, and voted to put in place rules to keep it that way. It sucks now, I and all my friends the grew up there were forced to move somewhere affordable, but it's not pure selfishness. They didn't take something away from someone else, no one else ever had it. And to expand it does inherently change the nature of what 'it' is and opens a genie that can NEVER be put back.
- astrange 2y ago
  > Long ago the people that lived in the area realized that they liked where they lived and how it was Ignoring that there were probably Indians there - that wasn't "long ago", residential zoning was mostly introduced in the 30s-60s. America hasn't had zoning for most of its life! Most other countries have never had it and still don't. (Except every other Anglo country has an even /worse/ planning system than American residential zoning.)
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Am I wrong to use when this issue started as the discussion starting point? Or are you agreeing that it is unfair to force a living situation change on a native population because other people want to move in or force their say about things? Zoning was introduced in the USA in 1904. The USA was 'urbanized' in 1920 the first time more Americans lived in cities than the rural countryside. Our zoning laws fit with the time period when we would develop things like... zoning laws. When my family moved to the Bay Area huge parts of it was fruit trees (with another large part being future superfund toxic waste dumps). If you were to drive (because they aren't designed for walking) along the 'Walmart strip' of any town in the USA I can't see how you can argue 'the USA has too strong of city planning'. Our growth is the stuff of ugly, out of control, unwalkable, car requiring nightmares.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]