If bay area land was not underutilized you would not need zoning to artificially constrain housing supply. We would also not be supply constrained on housing.
Artificially causing a housing shortage is arguably immoral because it cause high housing costs that in effect limits access to the rare opportunities found here. It makes it almost impossible to grow up with lower middle class parents or work in a low-pay low-skilled position, and mingling with the tech crowd to work your way up.
* A snapshot of more recent U.S. Census migration numbers shows that nearly three-quarters of those who have left California for other states since 2007 earn less than $50k a year.
* San Francisco's African American population has declined from 13.4% of the population in 1970 to 6.1%
* 41 percent of San Franciscans spend 30 to 50 percent on rent, despite a lot of rent control for longer-tenure residents and a population average income being $104k as well as median $77k
It also limits the number of and kind of opportunities that can be found here.
It's that land in Bay Area and SF which is underutilized. Because high density makes sense. Yes, I enjoy living in NYC.
> devalue someone else's home
A house is not money. It does not have a guaranteed value. It's property, like stock. If one's shares go down because of e.g. competition, people don't see it as an unjust assault.
By artificially constraining supply you are forcing externalities onto renters as well as new homebuyers, and in the same breath limiting others ability to meet this demand with the land they own. For the majority that can't afford the inflated rent you just kicked them out or made it impossible for them to even move here to seek opportunity.
I do not see how this can be just.
In reality if they do start building up the city extensively, the bubble will have burst by the time the housing capacity is much higher and people won’t want to live there at that time anyway, they’ll move somewhere cheaper - just my two cents.
Quite to the contrary rezoning is a normal way for cities to respond to changes in needs. You do however have a right to decide over your own land and to negotiate with other interests on changes to zoning rules, and I wholeheartedly support that.
Considering that land value has generally risen with density in western society and the economic drivers denser cities have become, I do not think your argument that higher density reduces monetary land value holds up to scrutiny.
A Berkley land owner decided they wanted to build something on their land that would satisfy the zoning requirements. Their neighbors didn't like it, so they lobbied the city government to ignore the zoning requirements and not let them build it.
Good. Your sense of entitlement to drive and park everywhere all the time does not and should not outrank other people's need to live where there are jobs (or, for that matter, the long-term viability of the planet).
>by the way the value of your most valuable asset, your home, was just halved.
I couldn't think of a brighter public policy success story than redistributing the unearned income of the landed aristocracy to people who are trying to make a living. If we build enough for the newcomers, at worst you're going to see returns at parity with inflation. Am I supposed to be sympathetic that you were thwarted from profiteering on a shortage?
You seem to have confused land ownership with its complement, ie. the right to dictate the uses of neighboring land but not your own. I don’t see any inverse deeds listed on the MLS. The closest thing I can think of would be voting shares in a corporation that come with permission to live on its land. But I’m guessing you’re not in favor of permitting more coops/TICs.
That many suburbs function this way is an emergent property of the political process, which can and should be unmade through the same process.
Owning a home in a coastal city or other job center is a question of bloodline and being in the right place at the right time; it’s not realistically available for any amount of wage labor, which is why I call it aristocracy. People whose home value corresponds to their earned income (most homeowners) aren’t in that category.
Granted, most American cities are this way. That’s because they are shriveled ruins of their former selves thanks to White Flight and deindustrializaton.
There should be a lower return for less efficient land use, buildings that are badly maintained or outdated housing stock.
Maybe devalue the actual structure, but upzoned land is worth more. The only people getting economically screwed here are condo owners.
Used to get a decent tax break. But Republicans made sure to stick it to Blue states with reducing the mortgage cap for deduction from $1M to $500k.
NIMBYism prevents outsiders from moving to your neighborhood. It is xenophobic in intent and effect.
It's not far-fetched to associate NIMBYism with a fear of the strange and foreign.
NIMBY means "Not in my back yard." That includes everything from HUD housing, to nuclear power plants, to fracking, to prisons.
I don't see how being afraid of nuclear disasters is in any way xenophobic. I also don't see how not wanting your property devalued by building cheaper houses is either.
I think you don't have a clear understanding of what those things are, particularly in regards to the article we're discussing which happens to be in present day time.
Or maybe that's your "I want to win" tactic and you are just throwing it out there to see if it will stick. That might work in some corners of the internet, but it doesn't seem to be working here. If you have a rational argument about the discussion, I invite you to present it.
Nuclear plants are a ridiculous strawman. We're talking about places for people — living, breathing human beings, with thoughts, dreams and aspirations — to live in.
Ensuring other people have a place to live is more important than your property values and neighborhood character.
I have an extremely clear understanding of how the white upper middle class has systematically used the state's monopoly on violence to exclude anyone else from joining their ranks.
xen·o·pho·bi·a ˌzenəˈfōbēə,ˌzēnəˈfōbēə/Submit noun intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.
Nimby ˈnimbē/Submit noun a person who objects to the siting of something perceived as unpleasant or potentially dangerous in their own neighborhood, such as a landfill or hazardous waste facility, especially while raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere.
In common parlance in the United States, NIMBYism includes opposition to housing. That is also what we're talking about in this thread.
You'll see that the changes don't actually make a difference to any of my arguments.
You're damn right. I assume you don't give half your paycheck away either.
>Any conversation about 'right', 'wrong', 'moral', it all goes out the window.
Right wrong and moral? From perspective of whom? Those are such subjective constructs. Is it right, wrong or moral to actively attempt to triple the population of an already densely populated area when there are millions of underutilized acreage in the continental US?
>It really sucks that so much of peoples' value is often tied up in a single property. It would be a gobsmackingly terrible investment decision, if you didn't need shelter to live reasonably well.
It's actually a pretty decent investment, but does involve risk. Instead of paying someone rent and owning jack shit, you are paying a mortgage and keeping at least some of that money. Most houses will increase in value as well. Also, your mortgage payment won't go up every few years like rents do, particularly in densely populated areas. You also get a decent tax break on a mortgage. You can also borrow against it at much better rates than cards when you are in a pinch (or are even unemployed).
>These people are being incredibly selfish, and that is reprehensible.
Which people? The people who bought houses, or the people who want to devalue someone else's home so they can get cheaper rent in a already overpopulated area that they just have to move to? That isn't entirely clear to me.