4 ms·

What if the people in power don't want prices to go down?

by amelius 8mo ago

cg5280 8mo ago
The problem isn’t the powers that be. A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments tooth and nail. And many blue states unfortunately give them a lot of tools to do so.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments Which is self interested. The paradox is renters being turned against their own interests by large landlords pitching anti-gentrification.
- lovecg 8mo ago
  Don’t know why this is being downvoted, that’s exactly right. One needs only to attend a local city meeting about any smallest step towards more development to see how the voters think.
- solid_fuel 8mo ago
  > A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments tooth and nail. In a system where those with more capitol have more power, homeowners are the powers that be. They're more likely to vote and have more money for discretionary spending - like donating to politicians.
  - calvinmorrison 8mo ago
    People have been steered for decades into using their home as a vehicle for retirement. Of course they want to protecet it.
    - solid_fuel 8mo ago
      I'm not blaming individual homeowners, there are very strong incentives for treating homes like retirement investments. It's an issue of policy, but we do have to address that it is also causing rent to rise and contributing to the homelessness crisis.
- epistasis 8mo ago
  People want to blame the 1% for massive wealth ineqality, but when it comes to unaffordable housing, a basic necessity of life, the villain is actually about 30% of the population that is rich enough to own homes, act like rentiers, and block access to neighborhoods and opportunities. The greatest inequality difference is that between those with housing assets and those without. Yes the 1% are a problem but they are not the reason that young people can no longer afford housing without generational wealth, that's all due to the seemingly normal guy that's enforcing a class system based on home ownership versus non-ownership.
  - shimman 8mo ago
    I think the majority of the electorate very much blame the people you're talking about. Who do you think progressives and MAGA refer to when talking about neoliberals? They're talking about the corporate class; those that care more about money but willing to play up useless culture war issues that impact small amounts of people.
TulliusCicero 8mo ago
It's typically local residents who fight this. There's a "fuck you, got mine" tendency to pull up the ladder once you've made it.
- lelandfe 8mo ago
  It's just as much "change is scary" and "I like this as it is." It's a very human reaction.
  - pclowes 8mo ago
    I dont think its just that. Nimbys also see: - many new building being very ugly (side note: ugly buildings no matter how green get torn down and are this not as green as building that are beautiful) - increasing density bringing increased crime - increased density actually turning out to be less efficient on a per capita tax basis (this is always wild to me, cities should be spending much less per capita than rural areas but arent)
- dmix 8mo ago
  They are the ones who show up at local political fundraising galas and constantly report local issues influencing municipal/state priorities. Although it's not just NIMBY. There's a million rules about building housing and developing land from zoning, environmental, indigenous, or social ends. Which are arguably luxury self-benefiting priorities for people who already own houses. Plus all the activists who think the government can both make development extremely expensive via endless rules while affording to fund mass government housing at the same time.
- CharlieDigital 8mo ago
  It is more complicated than that. A few years back when my youngest entered 1st grade, I attended some meetings where the superintendent talked about school expansions in the pipeline due to confirmed property development projects. Namely, when new housing is added, there are infrastructure considerations and corresponding expenses that translate to higher taxes. Civil planners have formulas for how much the student population will grow based on the housing density/type. Schools built on parcels based on 1970's population now have to expand to fit more students or the township has to find and acquire new land to build a new school. That requires raising taxes for bonds. A new school is several million dollars and then hiring staff. NJ has a legal limit of 25:1 in elementary. Add 100 students and you add at least 4 teachers that have to be supported by taxpayers. Expand the lunchroom, build a new gym, purchase new computers, all the ways up the chain for the next 12 years. If you ever look at your municipal tax bill, you will find that education is going to be the biggest expense by far. On top of that, roads may need to be widened. New roads have to be built and maintained. Municipal staff may need to increase. Some services may actually benefit from economies of scale (waste collection). Most will not. Imagine you bought a house in 1970 (i.e. my development) and you were paying $1000 annual property taxes. Now your property taxes are $12000 because of the increased spend on infrastructure and increased assessed value. You're a retiree and you've paid taxes for 2 or 3 generations of students. You live on a fixed income and your property taxes are a higher and higher proportion of your income. What do you do? Mortgage the house to pay taxes to fund more growth? The problem is exacerbated because obviously people want to go where the good schools are, where it's low crime, good infra, easy access to transportation. That drives demand and puts pressure on services while also raising taxes to pay to fund municipal bonds for growth. End of the day, my personal belief is that housing is a right. But I can also see why middle class folks, retirees end up pushing back when they get the bill in the form of increased property taxes. I've lived in my house 10 years now and my taxes have gone up ~$3500 in that time. Every school in the township had to expand to meet population growth with the additional units. Sure, my home value went up as well, but I can't cash that out. I can't imagine how it feels for retirees that are living in a family home here.
lo_zamoyski 8mo ago
Trump explicitly said he wants to keep prices high [0]. This is the problem with a culture that views housing not as a need or a home, but as an investment. Pathological. [0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-says-he-wants-to-drive-housing-prices-up-not-down https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-says-he-wa...
BurningFrog 8mo ago
After a few decades in California, I'm pretty sure there are no "people in power". There are a lot of people with some power, which they use as they see fit. It all adds up to marginal and pseudo-random changes, as the state drifts toward... wherever it's going.
pibaker 8mo ago
Over 60% of Americans are homeowners. In any functioning democracy, they ought to be the people in power.
- WarOnPrivacy 8mo ago
  [dead]
- amelius 8mo ago
  That's the tyranny of the majority. This is not how a functioning democracy should behave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
  - commiepatrol 8mo ago
    Isn't democracy "for the people by the people". Majority = more people. I guess "bad" majority shouldn't get a say?
    - rootusrootus 8mo ago
      How do you address the comment you replied to, though? Are you suggesting that in a population with, say, 300,000,000 people, it is okay for 150,000,001 to vote to oppress the remaining 149,999,999? In any case, in America we often treat democracy as rule by the plurality anyway, it is often not a majority.
gknapp 8mo ago
Well, it's easy! Just get the majority of voters to hate each other enough that it's a moral boundary to vote together on any law, effectively limiting any meaningful change.

What if the people in power don't want prices to go down?

by amelius 8mo ago

What if the people in power don't want prices to go down?

The problem isn’t the powers that be. A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments tooth and nail. And many blue states unfortunately give them a lot of tools to do so.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments Which is self interested. The paradox is renters being turned against their own interests by large landlords pitching anti-gentrification.
lovecg 8mo ago
Don’t know why this is being downvoted, that’s exactly right. One needs only to attend a local city meeting about any smallest step towards more development to see how the voters think.
solid_fuel 8mo ago
> A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments tooth and nail. In a system where those with more capitol have more power, homeowners are the powers that be. They're more likely to vote and have more money for discretionary spending - like donating to politicians.
- calvinmorrison 8mo ago
  People have been steered for decades into using their home as a vehicle for retirement. Of course they want to protecet it.
  - solid_fuel 8mo ago
    I'm not blaming individual homeowners, there are very strong incentives for treating homes like retirement investments. It's an issue of policy, but we do have to address that it is also causing rent to rise and contributing to the homelessness crisis.
epistasis 8mo ago
People want to blame the 1% for massive wealth ineqality, but when it comes to unaffordable housing, a basic necessity of life, the villain is actually about 30% of the population that is rich enough to own homes, act like rentiers, and block access to neighborhoods and opportunities. The greatest inequality difference is that between those with housing assets and those without. Yes the 1% are a problem but they are not the reason that young people can no longer afford housing without generational wealth, that's all due to the seemingly normal guy that's enforcing a class system based on home ownership versus non-ownership.
- shimman 8mo ago
  I think the majority of the electorate very much blame the people you're talking about. Who do you think progressives and MAGA refer to when talking about neoliberals? They're talking about the corporate class; those that care more about money but willing to play up useless culture war issues that impact small amounts of people.

TulliusCicero 8mo ago

It's typically local residents who fight this. There's a "fuck you, got mine" tendency to pull up the ladder once you've made it.

lelandfe 8mo ago
It's just as much "change is scary" and "I like this as it is." It's a very human reaction.
- pclowes 8mo ago
  I dont think its just that. Nimbys also see: - many new building being very ugly (side note: ugly buildings no matter how green get torn down and are this not as green as building that are beautiful) - increasing density bringing increased crime - increased density actually turning out to be less efficient on a per capita tax basis (this is always wild to me, cities should be spending much less per capita than rural areas but arent)
dmix 8mo ago
They are the ones who show up at local political fundraising galas and constantly report local issues influencing municipal/state priorities. Although it's not just NIMBY. There's a million rules about building housing and developing land from zoning, environmental, indigenous, or social ends. Which are arguably luxury self-benefiting priorities for people who already own houses. Plus all the activists who think the government can both make development extremely expensive via endless rules while affording to fund mass government housing at the same time.
CharlieDigital 8mo ago
It is more complicated than that. A few years back when my youngest entered 1st grade, I attended some meetings where the superintendent talked about school expansions in the pipeline due to confirmed property development projects. Namely, when new housing is added, there are infrastructure considerations and corresponding expenses that translate to higher taxes. Civil planners have formulas for how much the student population will grow based on the housing density/type. Schools built on parcels based on 1970's population now have to expand to fit more students or the township has to find and acquire new land to build a new school. That requires raising taxes for bonds. A new school is several million dollars and then hiring staff. NJ has a legal limit of 25:1 in elementary. Add 100 students and you add at least 4 teachers that have to be supported by taxpayers. Expand the lunchroom, build a new gym, purchase new computers, all the ways up the chain for the next 12 years. If you ever look at your municipal tax bill, you will find that education is going to be the biggest expense by far. On top of that, roads may need to be widened. New roads have to be built and maintained. Municipal staff may need to increase. Some services may actually benefit from economies of scale (waste collection). Most will not. Imagine you bought a house in 1970 (i.e. my development) and you were paying $1000 annual property taxes. Now your property taxes are $12000 because of the increased spend on infrastructure and increased assessed value. You're a retiree and you've paid taxes for 2 or 3 generations of students. You live on a fixed income and your property taxes are a higher and higher proportion of your income. What do you do? Mortgage the house to pay taxes to fund more growth? The problem is exacerbated because obviously people want to go where the good schools are, where it's low crime, good infra, easy access to transportation. That drives demand and puts pressure on services while also raising taxes to pay to fund municipal bonds for growth. End of the day, my personal belief is that housing is a right. But I can also see why middle class folks, retirees end up pushing back when they get the bill in the form of increased property taxes. I've lived in my house 10 years now and my taxes have gone up ~$3500 in that time. Every school in the township had to expand to meet population growth with the additional units. Sure, my home value went up as well, but I can't cash that out. I can't imagine how it feels for retirees that are living in a family home here.

lo_zamoyski 8mo ago

Trump explicitly said he wants to keep prices high [0]. This is the problem with a culture that views housing not as a need or a home, but as an investment. Pathological. [0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-says-he-wants-to-drive-housing-prices-up-not-down https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-says-he-wa...

BurningFrog 8mo ago

After a few decades in California, I'm pretty sure there are no "people in power". There are a lot of people with some power, which they use as they see fit. It all adds up to marginal and pseudo-random changes, as the state drifts toward... wherever it's going.

pibaker 8mo ago

Over 60% of Americans are homeowners. In any functioning democracy, they ought to be the people in power.

WarOnPrivacy 8mo ago
[dead]
amelius 8mo ago
That's the tyranny of the majority. This is not how a functioning democracy should behave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
- commiepatrol 8mo ago
  Isn't democracy "for the people by the people". Majority = more people. I guess "bad" majority shouldn't get a say?
  - rootusrootus 8mo ago
    How do you address the comment you replied to, though? Are you suggesting that in a population with, say, 300,000,000 people, it is okay for 150,000,001 to vote to oppress the remaining 149,999,999? In any case, in America we often treat democracy as rule by the plurality anyway, it is often not a majority.

gknapp 8mo ago

Well, it's easy! Just get the majority of voters to hate each other enough that it's a moral boundary to vote together on any law, effectively limiting any meaningful change.