4 ms·

It's funny to see Matt Stoller complain about land use restrictions here, as he refuses to acknowledge the problem for residential building: https://x.com/matt

It's funny to see Matt Stoller complain about land use restrictions here, as he refuses to acknowledge the problem for residential building: https://x.com/matthewstoller/status/1824155610201432264 https://x.com/matthewstoller/status/1824155610201432264 If apartment buildings are banned in 96% of residential land in California, with most of the 4% already built up with apartments, isn't that pretty similar to the commercial land use situation in Mammoth, CA?

akira2501 2y ago
It's funny to see criticism of Matt Stoller's points boil down to whataboutism. It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another. It doesn't invalidate anything.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  Ha ha, my dude, the two kinds of land use restrictions are the same thing. He might not be a hypocrite per se but it’s meant to illuminate that his position boils down to “I’ve got mine.”
  - JadeNB 2y ago
    > Ha ha, my dude, the two kinds of land use restrictions are the same thing. He might not be a hypocrite per se but it’s meant to illuminate that his position boils down to “I’ve got mine.” Your parent didn't say "those two cases are different," but rather "it's OK to be right about one thing and wrong on another." That someone has a blind spot for matters that affect him directly doesn't mean he's wrong about the matter that doesn't affect him directly (though of course it also doesn't mean he's right).
    - doctorpangloss 2y ago
      This isn't complicated. Matt Stoller, a guy I've never heard of and do not know personally, is a NIMBY. Millions of Californians are, no big deal. It's a valid opinion. But does it harm his credibility about political and economic matters? Yes, acutely in this case. There are costs to being a NIMBY, even if it's all about looking out for #1!
      - shkkmo 2y ago
        > This isn't complicated. Matt Stoller, a guy I've never heard of and do not know personally, is a NIMBY. Except, that isn't true. Arguing that the YIMBY explanation of our housing supply problems is incomplete doesn't make you a NIMBY. Your uniformed commentary also adds nothing to the discussion. Next time please take the time of read the opinions of someone before arguing on the internet about what they are.
- gruez 2y ago
  >It's funny to see criticism of Matt Stoller's points boil down to whataboutism. That's not whataboutism, it's inconsistency, and it's worth pointing out. >It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another. but wouldn't you rather be right on both? "but I'm at least right on one" seems like a pretty low bar to aim for. >It doesn't invalidate anything. Did OP imply otherwise?
  - falcolas 2y ago
    Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other government regulation. Beyond enforcement, the government has no real part in the former. Except perhaps not disallowing it. But we have rights to specific parts of usage excluded from land sales all the time - water rights being a particularly gnarly one.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other government regulation. Shouldn't he rail harder against the former than the latter? A contract is agreed to by two willing parties. The same can't be said for government regulation, especially for people who want to move into an area but are blocked by NIMBYs.
      - falcolas 2y ago
        Personally I'd agree. But his having different priorities than us doesn't make him a hypocrite.
      - shkkmo 2y ago
        > A contract is agreed to by two willing parties. That doesn't matter at all, "two willing parties" doesn't make a contract legal. Neither of those willing parties are the ones harmed being harmed by the anti-competitive contracts.
  - hmottestad 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- epistasis 2y ago
  To be clear, I think he's very right in this article about abuse of monopoly. I just wish he'd cede that for California, and other highly in-demand areas, he's wrong to pooh-pooh the monopoly of land use, and it makes him seem a bit foolish to me. If I'm ever inconsistent, I hope people point it out to me! This isn't "whataboutism" this is me changing the subject to a different area where I wish he'd be correct and use his considerable wonk-weight to correcting. Its not changing the subject to counter his point about grocery stores in Mammoth, California, it's more of a yes, and. I'm also for improving the market forces in construction, and do devote some political effort to correcting exactly that problem.
hmottestad 2y ago
So the majority of people want to keep it that way? Then it might just essentially boil down to democracy issues. Companies on the other hand don’t get a vote. So if all grocery companies banded together and voted for a law to allow monopolies then it wouldn’t be the same thing as if all the humans voted for it. Companies do love to lobby though, but lobbying and voting are still two different things. So if all the people in California banded together and voted to allow grocery chains to collaborate and split up areas to avoid competition, then I guess that would be mostly fine too.
- delfinom 2y ago
  >Companies on the other hand don’t get a vote. Bullshit. Their money holds more value than any vote.
- eesmith 2y ago
  You do not have enough information to tell if a majority of people want it that way. Some of these zoning restrictions (don't know specifically about CA but true elsewhere) were put into place 60 years ago, when a majority wanted it that way (often for very racists and class warfare reasons), and they made it a requirement to have a supermajority to change it, not simple majority. Thus, a majority could want to change, but are unable to reach the 2/3rds or whatever supermajority threshold is required. Don't all political questions in the US boil down to democracy issues?
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    Yeah and I believe a lot of HOA dissolution rules must reach 2/3.
- jandrese 2y ago
  One caveat is that these decisions are local, so people who have not had a chance to move in because there is no housing don't get a vote. Thus over time the law increasingly favors existing homeowners to the point where it completely fossilizes the community. It's a good deal for the people who live there, but a bad one for the population as a whole as all of the prime real estate is taken and they're pushed out to places that nobody previously wanted to live. If I had a good or easy solution I would offer it, but this is just a fundamental problem with democracy. Maybe if there was a fairly hostile state zoning board that vetoed most of the laws that prevent new construction, but there is almost no way to prevent that sort of position from being captured by the local interests and it would be very hard to staff since the person would be under both intense pressure and hate from nearly all communities in the state. Can you imagine being the guy who, through veto of the anti-construction law, let some skyscraper be built that blocks the ocean view of a few millionaire mansions? You'd be lucky to get out of town alive.
ipaddr 2y ago
Aren't low rises safer then earthquake zone
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Tokyo does just fine
  - otterley 2y ago
    As does San Francisco.
    - toast0 2y ago
      Building codes were updated, and I'd guess a similar earthquake today would have less damage, but San Francisco did not exactly do fine in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
      - otterley 2y ago
        Skyscrapers weren't seriously impacted, though. The biggest damage was sustained by bridges and concrete road viaducts built in the 1950s and 1960s which were not built to modern standards.
- epistasis 2y ago
  In most of California, older low-rise buildings are by far the most dangerous buildings out there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_story_building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_story_building Rebuilding these as new modern apartments would make everyone a lot safer in case of an earthquake. Also, we don't outlaw ways of life based on safety. For example, larger cities are far safer when it comes to fire deaths, than small towns, but we're not about to outlaw communities < 2,500 (see Figure 5): https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-research/fire-statistical-reports/fire-loss-in-the-united-states https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-re...
  - 2y ago
shkkmo 2y ago
"Refuses to acknowledge" is a really strange way to phrase the stance he put forward in the article linked in that tweet (I'm also confused why would you link to the tweet instead of the article in the first place?). I don't see a single place where he denies that land use restrictions can cause and/or amplify housing shortages. His point is that the lack of building supply is a national phenomena and thus there may be something more at work. I would argue that the housing finance middleman conglomerates who he claims are working to monopolize new housing supply are would likely be well versed at using NIMBY tendencies to achieve that goal. I would also argue that deflecting more blame for the situation onto local landowners instead of the large speculative land banks, would also be very valuable to such a cooperative oligoply.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
the difference is that in residential land use, the local residents are deciding themselves; with commercial land use, one company is deciding for the local residents if the residents of one town were deciding that no housing could be built in another town, that would be closer to the commercial land use case made here
- ProfessorLayton 2y ago
  Is it that different though? Local residents seem to be deciding what kind of housing can be built on land that isn't theirs. I can't build a fourplex on my lot, despite having the room for it, because people living elsewhere deemed it so. Instead it's a SFH with most of the lot wasted as setbacks, and is worth more than it should because of it.
  - conductr 2y ago
    I think it's a little different because you knew the situation regarding 4plex on your land when you bought it. You knew you'd have to ask someone's permission to do it and you knew the answer might be no. You also felt like the market was such that local businesses, like grocers, would be competitive and not gouging you with monopolistic strategies
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    The difference is that what the local residents decide impacts _new_ residents wanting to move in and make the town larger, whereas what the company decides impacts the residents _already_ living there. (Not saying that NIMBY-ism is good or right, just that the situation is different.)
princearthur 2y ago
Indeed artificial housing supply restrictions are about 100000000% more important. Alas, a portion of the progressive left was co-opted by the housing barons many decades ago. I believe California voters would be more progressive otherwise. Here in SF, a good example is the leading progressive mayoral candidate, Peskin. He's basically a housing subversive. He'll pay lip service to it, then sabotage YIMBY efforts. Earlier this year he sponsored an ordinance blocking higher density in parts of his district. The current mayor vetoed it [1] but he got the board to override the veto [2]. The barons originally sold suburban supply restrictions as anti-sprawl measures, co-opting the greener factions of the left. Then they sold density restrictions as anti-traffic measures. No suburbs + no density = no new housing. Luckily this unholy coalition has started to crumble a few years ago. A large majority of Democrats is now in favor of more housing. [1] https://sfstandard.com/2024/03/14/san-francisco-breed-peskin-housing-waterfront-density/ https://sfstandard.com/2024/03/14/san-francisco-breed-peskin... [2] https://sfist.com/2024/03/26/supervisors-override-breeds-veto-of-peskins-density-control-legislation-in-big-win-for-peskin/ https://sfist.com/2024/03/26/supervisors-override-breeds-vet...
- epistasis 2y ago
  It's been rather shocking hearing one President candidate push Peskin-like policy (Trump), and the other the policies of Peskin's nemeses (Harris). Of course since Harris is from Oakland, slightly younger, and doesn't come from trust fund money, her background would be more likely to align with fair housing policy than Peskin.
  - princearthur 2y ago
    It's really an amazing study in political science. Progressives are supposed to be all about helping the poor, but some were sold a camouflaged dystopia. To reach utopia - the fantasy goes - we must first travel through a dystopia in which the poor are enserfed by the housing barons, paying upwards of 70% of their income in rent. Unfortunately the dystopia never ends in practice. Then there's the perplexing question of how real estate taxation got to this point. As the saying goes, a real estate family that pays any income tax at all needs to fire their tax advisor.

akira2501 2y ago

It's funny to see criticism of Matt Stoller's points boil down to whataboutism. It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another. It doesn't invalidate anything.

doctorpangloss 2y ago
Ha ha, my dude, the two kinds of land use restrictions are the same thing. He might not be a hypocrite per se but it’s meant to illuminate that his position boils down to “I’ve got mine.”
- JadeNB 2y ago
  > Ha ha, my dude, the two kinds of land use restrictions are the same thing. He might not be a hypocrite per se but it’s meant to illuminate that his position boils down to “I’ve got mine.” Your parent didn't say "those two cases are different," but rather "it's OK to be right about one thing and wrong on another." That someone has a blind spot for matters that affect him directly doesn't mean he's wrong about the matter that doesn't affect him directly (though of course it also doesn't mean he's right).
  - doctorpangloss 2y ago
    This isn't complicated. Matt Stoller, a guy I've never heard of and do not know personally, is a NIMBY. Millions of Californians are, no big deal. It's a valid opinion. But does it harm his credibility about political and economic matters? Yes, acutely in this case. There are costs to being a NIMBY, even if it's all about looking out for #1!
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      > This isn't complicated. Matt Stoller, a guy I've never heard of and do not know personally, is a NIMBY. Except, that isn't true. Arguing that the YIMBY explanation of our housing supply problems is incomplete doesn't make you a NIMBY. Your uniformed commentary also adds nothing to the discussion. Next time please take the time of read the opinions of someone before arguing on the internet about what they are.
gruez 2y ago
>It's funny to see criticism of Matt Stoller's points boil down to whataboutism. That's not whataboutism, it's inconsistency, and it's worth pointing out. >It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another. but wouldn't you rather be right on both? "but I'm at least right on one" seems like a pretty low bar to aim for. >It doesn't invalidate anything. Did OP imply otherwise?
- falcolas 2y ago
  Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other government regulation. Beyond enforcement, the government has no real part in the former. Except perhaps not disallowing it. But we have rights to specific parts of usage excluded from land sales all the time - water rights being a particularly gnarly one.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other government regulation. Shouldn't he rail harder against the former than the latter? A contract is agreed to by two willing parties. The same can't be said for government regulation, especially for people who want to move into an area but are blocked by NIMBYs.
    - falcolas 2y ago
      Personally I'd agree. But his having different priorities than us doesn't make him a hypocrite.
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      > A contract is agreed to by two willing parties. That doesn't matter at all, "two willing parties" doesn't make a contract legal. Neither of those willing parties are the ones harmed being harmed by the anti-competitive contracts.
- hmottestad 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
epistasis 2y ago
To be clear, I think he's very right in this article about abuse of monopoly. I just wish he'd cede that for California, and other highly in-demand areas, he's wrong to pooh-pooh the monopoly of land use, and it makes him seem a bit foolish to me. If I'm ever inconsistent, I hope people point it out to me! This isn't "whataboutism" this is me changing the subject to a different area where I wish he'd be correct and use his considerable wonk-weight to correcting. Its not changing the subject to counter his point about grocery stores in Mammoth, California, it's more of a yes, and. I'm also for improving the market forces in construction, and do devote some political effort to correcting exactly that problem.

hmottestad 2y ago

So the majority of people want to keep it that way? Then it might just essentially boil down to democracy issues. Companies on the other hand don’t get a vote. So if all grocery companies banded together and voted for a law to allow monopolies then it wouldn’t be the same thing as if all the humans voted for it. Companies do love to lobby though, but lobbying and voting are still two different things. So if all the people in California banded together and voted to allow grocery chains to collaborate and split up areas to avoid competition, then I guess that would be mostly fine too.

delfinom 2y ago
>Companies on the other hand don’t get a vote. Bullshit. Their money holds more value than any vote.
eesmith 2y ago
You do not have enough information to tell if a majority of people want it that way. Some of these zoning restrictions (don't know specifically about CA but true elsewhere) were put into place 60 years ago, when a majority wanted it that way (often for very racists and class warfare reasons), and they made it a requirement to have a supermajority to change it, not simple majority. Thus, a majority could want to change, but are unable to reach the 2/3rds or whatever supermajority threshold is required. Don't all political questions in the US boil down to democracy issues?
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  Yeah and I believe a lot of HOA dissolution rules must reach 2/3.
jandrese 2y ago
One caveat is that these decisions are local, so people who have not had a chance to move in because there is no housing don't get a vote. Thus over time the law increasingly favors existing homeowners to the point where it completely fossilizes the community. It's a good deal for the people who live there, but a bad one for the population as a whole as all of the prime real estate is taken and they're pushed out to places that nobody previously wanted to live. If I had a good or easy solution I would offer it, but this is just a fundamental problem with democracy. Maybe if there was a fairly hostile state zoning board that vetoed most of the laws that prevent new construction, but there is almost no way to prevent that sort of position from being captured by the local interests and it would be very hard to staff since the person would be under both intense pressure and hate from nearly all communities in the state. Can you imagine being the guy who, through veto of the anti-construction law, let some skyscraper be built that blocks the ocean view of a few millionaire mansions? You'd be lucky to get out of town alive.

ipaddr 2y ago

Aren't low rises safer then earthquake zone

llamaimperative 2y ago
Tokyo does just fine
- otterley 2y ago
  As does San Francisco.
  - toast0 2y ago
    Building codes were updated, and I'd guess a similar earthquake today would have less damage, but San Francisco did not exactly do fine in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
    - otterley 2y ago
      Skyscrapers weren't seriously impacted, though. The biggest damage was sustained by bridges and concrete road viaducts built in the 1950s and 1960s which were not built to modern standards.
epistasis 2y ago
In most of California, older low-rise buildings are by far the most dangerous buildings out there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_story_building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_story_building Rebuilding these as new modern apartments would make everyone a lot safer in case of an earthquake. Also, we don't outlaw ways of life based on safety. For example, larger cities are far safer when it comes to fire deaths, than small towns, but we're not about to outlaw communities < 2,500 (see Figure 5): https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-research/fire-statistical-reports/fire-loss-in-the-united-states https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-re...
- 2y ago

shkkmo 2y ago

"Refuses to acknowledge" is a really strange way to phrase the stance he put forward in the article linked in that tweet (I'm also confused why would you link to the tweet instead of the article in the first place?). I don't see a single place where he denies that land use restrictions can cause and/or amplify housing shortages. His point is that the lack of building supply is a national phenomena and thus there may be something more at work. I would argue that the housing finance middleman conglomerates who he claims are working to monopolize new housing supply are would likely be well versed at using NIMBY tendencies to achieve that goal. I would also argue that deflecting more blame for the situation onto local landowners instead of the large speculative land banks, would also be very valuable to such a cooperative oligoply.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

the difference is that in residential land use, the local residents are deciding themselves; with commercial land use, one company is deciding for the local residents if the residents of one town were deciding that no housing could be built in another town, that would be closer to the commercial land use case made here

ProfessorLayton 2y ago
Is it that different though? Local residents seem to be deciding what kind of housing can be built on land that isn't theirs. I can't build a fourplex on my lot, despite having the room for it, because people living elsewhere deemed it so. Instead it's a SFH with most of the lot wasted as setbacks, and is worth more than it should because of it.
- conductr 2y ago
  I think it's a little different because you knew the situation regarding 4plex on your land when you bought it. You knew you'd have to ask someone's permission to do it and you knew the answer might be no. You also felt like the market was such that local businesses, like grocers, would be competitive and not gouging you with monopolistic strategies
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  The difference is that what the local residents decide impacts _new_ residents wanting to move in and make the town larger, whereas what the company decides impacts the residents _already_ living there. (Not saying that NIMBY-ism is good or right, just that the situation is different.)

princearthur 2y ago

Indeed artificial housing supply restrictions are about 100000000% more important. Alas, a portion of the progressive left was co-opted by the housing barons many decades ago. I believe California voters would be more progressive otherwise. Here in SF, a good example is the leading progressive mayoral candidate, Peskin. He's basically a housing subversive. He'll pay lip service to it, then sabotage YIMBY efforts. Earlier this year he sponsored an ordinance blocking higher density in parts of his district. The current mayor vetoed it [1] but he got the board to override the veto [2]. The barons originally sold suburban supply restrictions as anti-sprawl measures, co-opting the greener factions of the left. Then they sold density restrictions as anti-traffic measures. No suburbs + no density = no new housing. Luckily this unholy coalition has started to crumble a few years ago. A large majority of Democrats is now in favor of more housing. [1] https://sfstandard.com/2024/03/14/san-francisco-breed-peskin-housing-waterfront-density/ https://sfstandard.com/2024/03/14/san-francisco-breed-peskin... [2] https://sfist.com/2024/03/26/supervisors-override-breeds-veto-of-peskins-density-control-legislation-in-big-win-for-peskin/ https://sfist.com/2024/03/26/supervisors-override-breeds-vet...

epistasis 2y ago
It's been rather shocking hearing one President candidate push Peskin-like policy (Trump), and the other the policies of Peskin's nemeses (Harris). Of course since Harris is from Oakland, slightly younger, and doesn't come from trust fund money, her background would be more likely to align with fair housing policy than Peskin.
- princearthur 2y ago
  It's really an amazing study in political science. Progressives are supposed to be all about helping the poor, but some were sold a camouflaged dystopia. To reach utopia - the fantasy goes - we must first travel through a dystopia in which the poor are enserfed by the housing barons, paying upwards of 70% of their income in rent. Unfortunately the dystopia never ends in practice. Then there's the perplexing question of how real estate taxation got to this point. As the saying goes, a real estate family that pays any income tax at all needs to fire their tax advisor.