6 ms·

Sadly structurally the system favors housing incumbents. And it doesn’t take a lot to derail efforts to create more supply. In my town we spent 8 years of publ

Sadly structurally the system favors housing incumbents. And it doesn’t take a lot to derail efforts to create more supply. In my town we spent 8 years of public involvement in rezoning to increase supply and density. Including several city council elections of pro-housing council members elected over more NIMBY ones. Only to have it all screwed up by 2-3 households that sued, pausing the zoning and throwing a wrench into a lot of new housing construction. I feel like there has to be an effort at all layers of government to solve this structural problem where a few homes can derail a democratic process.

grafmax 1y ago
And yet zoning is just one factor in housing supply. Even successfully implementing upzoning laws can find markets with higher prices, rates of homelessness, and investor ownership of housing - because many factors influence these outcomes not just zoning laws.
- LastTrain 1y ago
  Is there an example where upzoning has resulted in reduced housing prices?
  - softwaredoug 1y ago
    Yes there is. It’s one of many factors. I did a deep dive years ago before wanting to support the issue locally IE: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability https://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 https://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 > we argue that high prices have little to do with conventional models with a free market for land. Instead, our evidence suggests that zoning and other land use controls, play the dominant role in making housing expensive.
    - grafmax 1y ago
      > an example where upzoning has resulted in reduced housing prices I found an argument in your paper but no such examples.
      - LastTrain 1y ago
        I’ve not been able to find any, which is not to say there aren’t any, but when you have these conversations the inevitable result is getting called a NIMBY so I tend to abandon them early.
  - pgwhalen 1y ago
    Yes, here's an episode of a podcast with the authors of such a paper. https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/2024/12/11/83-local-effects-of-upzoning-with-elena-lutz-and-simon-buchler/ https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/2024/12/11/83-local-effects-of-up...
    - LastTrain 1y ago
      Thanks. Zurich. I don’t think even the authors would call this a slam dunk, and they cite it as the best available example. I do appreciate that they rightly call out that upzoning will cause movements in the population and the potential benefits will take decades to materialize.
      - pgwhalen 1y ago
        I’m not sure what “slam dunk” means in this context, but they do note how clear the effect is, even if it does unfortunately take 5-10 years before it shows.
    - grafmax 1y ago
      It looks like rent stayed the same there. It didn’t decrease.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  Yes I agree it’s just one factor. It’s necessary but not sufficient. I think I another huge constraint is construction labor. Which is very tight right now. I’m reminded we built the Empire State Building in 9 months. I see delays for single family homes causing it to take years.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    Those aren’t comparable. A delay in a standard stick built home would be due to legal issues. Otherwise, tract homebuilders in the US have metrics of building a brand new house within 100 days. The labor costs are high, but not that high that construction is delayed due to lack of labor. Land prices and clearing legal hurdles are the bigger problem.
  - Bjartr 1y ago
    An important consideration for the Empire State Building is that it was not built by the lowest bidder. It was built by those who were considered most likely to be successful at the endeavor.
CGMthrowaway 1y ago
[flagged]
- mothballed 1y ago
  Yes but the unique piece here is ratcheting up of ever increasing codes, zoning, regulations while grandfathering in the old housing. The people voting made their own houses illegal but then said their own houses were exempt. They've created an effect where the incumbents own housing that would be illegal for anyone else to create, which helps prop up their home value massively since it artificially raises the price of the substitutive option of building a house.
  - PessimalDecimal 1y ago
    Solution: no more codes, zoning or regulations?
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Or just apply the law equally? If you want to vote to increase regulation you agree it applies to your own house. If you're going to impose some $10,000 sprinkler system on the new guy you better be willing to renovate your house too.
      - andsoitis 1y ago
        > Or just apply the law equally? Laws generally don’t apply retroactively; they don’t affect actions or events that occurred before the law was enacted due to principles rooted in fairness, legal stability, and practical governance. Non-retroactivity protects individuals from arbitrary government power, ensures trust in legal systems, and promotes economic and social stability. Without this principle, people could be penalized for past decisions made in good faith, eroding confidence in governance. > If you're going to impose some $10,000 sprinkler system on the new guy you better be willing to renovate your house too. What about home building codes affecting structure, e.g. against earthquakes?
enraged_camel 1y ago
>> I feel like there has to be an effort at all layers of government to solve this structural problem where a few homes can derail a democratic process. What you describe is not a structural problem. On the contrary, it is precisely how a constitutional, rule-of-law system is meant to work. Democracy does not mean pure majority rule. Our system is a constitutional democracy. Majorities make policy, but minority rights and legal limits constrain how they do it. Courts are there to enforce these limits even when a policy is popular. Judicial review is part of the design. Reviewing legislative and administrative actions for legality is a built-in check and balance, not a veto by randos. The courts exist to ensure the other branches do not skip required steps or exceed their authorities. More specifically, the legal concept of "standing" prevents this from being arbitrary. In most contexts, you cannot sue just because you dislike a decision. You must show concrete injury, such as living next to an affected area. That's why a "few households" can file: they're the ones with legally cognizable stakes. Now, I will grant that in places like California with decades of existing laws, NIMBYs have done an excellent job figuring out exactly what buttons to press and what levers to pull to get their way. But this is not a flaw in the system. It just means that they have read all the manuals (because they are very strong incentivized, financially, to do so) and are now using it competently, even if it is self-serving and sometimes even in bad faith. But other locales have figured out the solutions to this problem. The article gives one such example: Austin, TX.
- throw0101a 1y ago
  >> Only to have it all screwed up by 2-3 households that sued, pausing the zoning and throwing a wrench into a lot of new housing construction. > Democracy does not mean pure majority rule. Our system is a constitutional democracy. Majorities make policy, but minority rights and legal limits constrain how they do it. Courts are there to enforce these limits even when a policy is popular. When the minority is 20-30 percent you may have a point, when it's 2-3 people then that's just obstructionism.
  - enraged_camel 1y ago
    You should read the rest of my post. The reason it's "2-3 people" is because those 2-3 people are the ones who have legal standing to sue.
_DeadFred_ 1y ago
And in my neighborhood they wanted to rezone to allow an asphalt plant for highway construction, something that made all of our homes unfit for purpose but that the government really really wanted. The ability for 2-3 households to sue to stop something like that where the government just steamrolls over zoning/etc because it benefits the government is hugely important. A home is the biggest investment a person will make. It is also not easy to unwind from. Zoning is a promise by the government 'invest in this, we promise it will stay what you are purchasing'. A few home owners should definitely be able to force the government to keep that promise, and to keep their homes fit for purpose.
- _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  I love downvotes for saying 'zoning laws that promise your home is habitable for human habitation should prevent adding toxic chemical factories to a neighborhood after the fact'. At least comment and justify your downvote.

grafmax 1y ago

And yet zoning is just one factor in housing supply. Even successfully implementing upzoning laws can find markets with higher prices, rates of homelessness, and investor ownership of housing - because many factors influence these outcomes not just zoning laws.

LastTrain 1y ago
Is there an example where upzoning has resulted in reduced housing prices?
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  Yes there is. It’s one of many factors. I did a deep dive years ago before wanting to support the issue locally IE: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability https://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 https://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 > we argue that high prices have little to do with conventional models with a free market for land. Instead, our evidence suggests that zoning and other land use controls, play the dominant role in making housing expensive.
  - grafmax 1y ago
    > an example where upzoning has resulted in reduced housing prices I found an argument in your paper but no such examples.
    - LastTrain 1y ago
      I’ve not been able to find any, which is not to say there aren’t any, but when you have these conversations the inevitable result is getting called a NIMBY so I tend to abandon them early.
- pgwhalen 1y ago
  Yes, here's an episode of a podcast with the authors of such a paper. https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/2024/12/11/83-local-effects-of-upzoning-with-elena-lutz-and-simon-buchler/ https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/2024/12/11/83-local-effects-of-up...
  - LastTrain 1y ago
    Thanks. Zurich. I don’t think even the authors would call this a slam dunk, and they cite it as the best available example. I do appreciate that they rightly call out that upzoning will cause movements in the population and the potential benefits will take decades to materialize.
    - pgwhalen 1y ago
      I’m not sure what “slam dunk” means in this context, but they do note how clear the effect is, even if it does unfortunately take 5-10 years before it shows.
  - grafmax 1y ago
    It looks like rent stayed the same there. It didn’t decrease.
softwaredoug 1y ago
Yes I agree it’s just one factor. It’s necessary but not sufficient. I think I another huge constraint is construction labor. Which is very tight right now. I’m reminded we built the Empire State Building in 9 months. I see delays for single family homes causing it to take years.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  Those aren’t comparable. A delay in a standard stick built home would be due to legal issues. Otherwise, tract homebuilders in the US have metrics of building a brand new house within 100 days. The labor costs are high, but not that high that construction is delayed due to lack of labor. Land prices and clearing legal hurdles are the bigger problem.
- Bjartr 1y ago
  An important consideration for the Empire State Building is that it was not built by the lowest bidder. It was built by those who were considered most likely to be successful at the endeavor.

CGMthrowaway 1y ago

[flagged]

mothballed 1y ago
Yes but the unique piece here is ratcheting up of ever increasing codes, zoning, regulations while grandfathering in the old housing. The people voting made their own houses illegal but then said their own houses were exempt. They've created an effect where the incumbents own housing that would be illegal for anyone else to create, which helps prop up their home value massively since it artificially raises the price of the substitutive option of building a house.
- PessimalDecimal 1y ago
  Solution: no more codes, zoning or regulations?
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Or just apply the law equally? If you want to vote to increase regulation you agree it applies to your own house. If you're going to impose some $10,000 sprinkler system on the new guy you better be willing to renovate your house too.
    - andsoitis 1y ago
      > Or just apply the law equally? Laws generally don’t apply retroactively; they don’t affect actions or events that occurred before the law was enacted due to principles rooted in fairness, legal stability, and practical governance. Non-retroactivity protects individuals from arbitrary government power, ensures trust in legal systems, and promotes economic and social stability. Without this principle, people could be penalized for past decisions made in good faith, eroding confidence in governance. > If you're going to impose some $10,000 sprinkler system on the new guy you better be willing to renovate your house too. What about home building codes affecting structure, e.g. against earthquakes?

enraged_camel 1y ago

>> I feel like there has to be an effort at all layers of government to solve this structural problem where a few homes can derail a democratic process. What you describe is not a structural problem. On the contrary, it is precisely how a constitutional, rule-of-law system is meant to work. Democracy does not mean pure majority rule. Our system is a constitutional democracy. Majorities make policy, but minority rights and legal limits constrain how they do it. Courts are there to enforce these limits even when a policy is popular. Judicial review is part of the design. Reviewing legislative and administrative actions for legality is a built-in check and balance, not a veto by randos. The courts exist to ensure the other branches do not skip required steps or exceed their authorities. More specifically, the legal concept of "standing" prevents this from being arbitrary. In most contexts, you cannot sue just because you dislike a decision. You must show concrete injury, such as living next to an affected area. That's why a "few households" can file: they're the ones with legally cognizable stakes. Now, I will grant that in places like California with decades of existing laws, NIMBYs have done an excellent job figuring out exactly what buttons to press and what levers to pull to get their way. But this is not a flaw in the system. It just means that they have read all the manuals (because they are very strong incentivized, financially, to do so) and are now using it competently, even if it is self-serving and sometimes even in bad faith. But other locales have figured out the solutions to this problem. The article gives one such example: Austin, TX.

throw0101a 1y ago
>> Only to have it all screwed up by 2-3 households that sued, pausing the zoning and throwing a wrench into a lot of new housing construction. > Democracy does not mean pure majority rule. Our system is a constitutional democracy. Majorities make policy, but minority rights and legal limits constrain how they do it. Courts are there to enforce these limits even when a policy is popular. When the minority is 20-30 percent you may have a point, when it's 2-3 people then that's just obstructionism.
- enraged_camel 1y ago
  You should read the rest of my post. The reason it's "2-3 people" is because those 2-3 people are the ones who have legal standing to sue.

_DeadFred_ 1y ago

And in my neighborhood they wanted to rezone to allow an asphalt plant for highway construction, something that made all of our homes unfit for purpose but that the government really really wanted. The ability for 2-3 households to sue to stop something like that where the government just steamrolls over zoning/etc because it benefits the government is hugely important. A home is the biggest investment a person will make. It is also not easy to unwind from. Zoning is a promise by the government 'invest in this, we promise it will stay what you are purchasing'. A few home owners should definitely be able to force the government to keep that promise, and to keep their homes fit for purpose.

_DeadFred_ 1y ago
I love downvotes for saying 'zoning laws that promise your home is habitable for human habitation should prevent adding toxic chemical factories to a neighborhood after the fact'. At least comment and justify your downvote.