Yes, building a bunch of new units will change a neighborhood. Yes, changing zoning will alter a neighborhood.
What, precisely, gives everyone who wishes to live in an area the "right" to live there affordably, as defined by whatever arbitrary definition?
I am all for relaxing zoning and building new houses because the rent is too damn high, but I also see this attitude in NYC and it is insane.
No one has a right to move to NYC, and most particularly my block. If you don't like the prices, no one is forcing you to move in to my neighborhood. Actually, I'm beyond saturated with people moving in to the neighborhood I invested 20 years in to, and subsequently telling me and my neighbors who did similarly how to live, how to behave, and driving every existing business away and replacing it with the same exact thing but priced at triple.
And yes, I know gentrification and new developments are orthogonal and in many cases allowing more construction would lower rents and transitively lower prices which is why I am generally in favor of relaxing zoning.
But this general sense of entitlement, SHEESH! You don't have a right to move on to my block, at whatever price you feel like paying.
> No one has a right to move to NYC, and most particularly my block.
People have a right to use their property as they see fit. If that means tearing down a brownstone in your neighborhood and building a high rise so a bunch of people from the Midwest can move in, so be it. The government can limit those rights when necessary, but the affirmative burden is on the party demanding such regulation to show why it is necessary to interfere with peoples’ property rights.
Says you. I don't see that. Although I live in a working-class area in a lesser city, I've worked to make my community better, and my interests don't stop at money.
"People have a right to use their property as they see fit. If that means tearing down a brownstone in your neighborhood and building a high rise so a bunch of people from the Midwest can move in, so be it. The government can limit those rights when necessary, but the affirmative burden is on the party demanding such regulation to show why it is necessary to interfere with peoples’ property rights."
But you are the one arguing for gov't intervention. The locals want things to stay the same. Its local landowners who don't want change. I don't understand this part of your argument.
No, the law says that. The law lets you capture the increased value of your property. That’s the nature of a property right. Property rights don’t give you the right to dictate how other people use their property. Even zoning laws were intended to protect neighborhood health and safety, not the locals’ interests in preventing change.
> But you are the one arguing for gov't intervention. The locals want things to stay the same. Its local landowners who don't want change. I don't understand this part of your argument.
Owning property gives you complete dominion over that property, by default. If I own a brownstone, and want to tear it down and build a high rise, I can do that. That’s the nature of property rights. What prevents me from doing that is zoning boards, historical conservency laws, etc. Thats government intervention.
What are ways in which people are telling you to live?
I'm looking forward to the 3X price jumps of businesses in my neighborhood - it might improve the quality of the food and options. I say that entirely with a straight face - since almost all the food options are 'affordable', the food options are greasy, unhealthy and also lacking in diversity.
My take is, everyone has a right to try to 'make it.' People don't need to take note of how the community was 5, 10, or 50 years ago as the city is continually changing. Almost nowhere in NYC is a neighborhood static in terms of pricepoints, culture or just about anything else.
I think it's reasonable for people who have lived decades someplace to want this preserved, and it's equally reasonable for new people to come in with new ideas.
It's a zero-sum game and so the law has to view these things without biasing any group as much as possible.
But, anyway, I’m willing to change my opinion. Just argue your case more persuasively. How is adding more supply going to fix this?
For example, if on any given day 20 people want to buy in my neighborhood (just guessing), how much supply would have to be built to even reduce prices? Seems like it would have to be massive. How do you prevent over-supply from being built? How do you ensure that the housing is of suitable quality?
By the way, I’m not the type of person that would oppose denser development. I just would prefer it be built slowly, in a controlled manner only because I’ve witnessed first hand developers destroying areas for quick profits.
For example, a friend recently visited and used airbnb to lodge at one of those newish buildings on 9th street. The building looks great on the outside. But, inside, the units looked and felt like what I imagine Soviet block style buildings would be like.
It’s been years and next to nothing has been built in the vast majority of the Bay Area - housing has decreased in some parts. It’s not a rapid development concern, it’s a no development concern.
How could it not?
> How do you prevent over-supply from being built? How do you ensure that the housing is of suitable quality?
How do we prevent the over-supply of anything? How do we ensure the quality of anything in the market? Housing is not a unique good. This is a solved problem.
> a friend recently visited and used airbnb to lodge at one of those newish buildings on 9th street. The building looks great on the outside. But, inside, the units looked and felt like what I imagine Soviet block style buildings would be like.
And what's the vacancy rate on that building? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not serving a market niche.
> How is adding more supply going to fix this?
Adding supply helps because we now have a situation in California where there are many more jobs than homes for people to live. Conservatives keep saying people should work hard, right? Then they need to move where there are jobs. Liberals keep saying people should have access to dignity and a social safety net, right? Then they need to move where there is a friendly political climate and a robust economy to support that safety net. Being a “sanctuary state” is no good when refugees can’t afford to live here.
The big debate is over how to increase supply. The number of homes is increasing, but it is increasing much too slowly. That’s why even with visible construction, prices still increase. But even a slow increase of luxury homes helps, slightly, because every rich person buying a luxury home is a rich person not outbidding a middle-class family for a run-down hovel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQGQU0T6NBc
> 20 people want to buy in my neighborhood, how much supply would have to be built to even reduce prices?
It’s a region-wide market. But on a simple level, yes, you’d need 20 homes to stabilize prices. That seems more humane to me than forcing people to double-up or live in tents.
> How do you prevent over-supply from being built?
You don’t. You need like 10% vacancy, ± some amount, to have a healthy amount of wiggle room for people to move, in case they get a baby or need to fumigate the house or something.
In practice, developers have teams of economists working to make sure they don’t build too much. If the local government makes development excessively difficult and expensive, then they will develop only a limited supply of luxury apartments, unless they get some subsidy. If the local government makes development easy, then they will make profits building for the vast middle class. We should make developer profit margins align with what we need as a society.
> How do you ensure that the housing is of suitable quality?
Competition and building codes. That’s how we ensure suitable quality for everything else.
Note that building codes necessarily mean marginal housing is excluded, so they need to be balanced with our ability to subsidize. Otherwise, you end up with luxury housing in a sea of tents.
We should also be much more willing to destroy existing homes. This urge to preserve the exterior of every existing home is destroying the fabric of society. I call that, “The literal façade of neighborhood character destroying the neighborhood’s character.”
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/12/the-power-of-g...
> I’ve witnessed first hand developers destroying areas for quick profits.
So we need to make competition easier. Experience has shown that trying to control the process in a central government manner just tilts the playing field in favor of huge well-connected firms that can absorb the overhead of dealing with endless processes, and disenfranchises small local developers.
I strongly disagree with restricting the process to build slowly. We have had 50 years of building slowly when we should have been building quickly. Some places should build slowly, but when the economy is changing, then building quickly should be possible.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/upshot/what-happened-to-t...
I am still skeptical of some points (the NYC article, for example seems to make some large logical leaps), but at least I have paths for further research.
Minds can change. Often we just need more and better information (and some time to digest it all).
There are neighborhoods that simply need /vastly/ more density than currently exists, or which have predominantly older buildings and infrastructure. Those areas should be bought out en-mass by the people (government), and sale encouraged at some fixed ratio of existing market valuations consistent with values prior to market insanity.
The entire area can then be taken offline and upgraded from the base up with a full-refresh; ideally at a density target and with modern building codes and designs.
Those building codes should make apartment/condo living affordable, as well as requiring sufficient space, isolation, and quality of life for all involved. It should be less costly and higher quality of life to live in a city, not more costly and lower quality of life as it is now.
And you expect them to uphold all of the quality standards from your last paragraph rather than taking the vastly easier and more profitable route of pocketing lobbying cash from the largest developers? This is a terrible idea.
The market ensures those things.
Then in the process of redeveloping, as more and more properties are redeveloped, the old character is lost to everybody- the people who lived there as well as the new people who moved there for that character!
It's not a new conundrum- what do you do about people moving to a community for it's desirable character, but killing that character in the process? It hurts everyone involved.
HN frequently likes to take the position that the parcel you bought is yours, but if your neighbor wants to bootstrap a red light district you just have to deal. But, all over the country we have HOA's and zoning and so forth. Turns out, people want to come together and live in a community. Nobody particularly likes living in a free-for-all, so mutual agreements were set up to ensure the neighborhood you bought into doesn't turn into something totally different overnight.
Here's what I think is the central (and flawed) assumption in this line of reasoning - people move to an area because of its "character". And that "character" is an intangible, immeasurable quality, but it is somehow diminished if more people move to the area.
I grew up in Seattle. Both of my grandparents, when I was a kid, lived in Seattle's Fremont neighborhood. I live in Fremont today. From one perspective, the Fremont of my childhood is completely changed. On the other hand, it's still Fremont, with the Center of the Universe sign and the statue of Lenin and many other things I remember from childhood. Does it have the same "character"? Does it have a newer, different, but just as good, "character"?
Those are impossible questions and it boils down to a Ship of Theseus style argument. Either way, I can't bring myself to assert that the housing supply of Fremont should be artificially constrained by zoning policies, in order to preserve my ideal of what Fremont "should be" or "used to be".
In our case redevelopment for density actually helps preserve that character. But I still feel like I can understand the Bay Area home owners.
But many voters believe what we should preserve is the single-family home, built environment that some developer created long ago. Then the number of people per unit of land is restricted: homes near economic activity become playthings of the rich, and any new home that is affordable is taking away wildlife habitat and farmland.
In short, their stance is understandable, but it is sociopathic.
Do you believe this is an honest characterization of their core goal? Is the opposition's number one goal simply to oppose multifamily property? Like, "God ordained that no two families should live in a single structure"? Or is it about property valuation changes, or building height, or street parking, or land use, or decreasing number of (semi-permanent) owners and increasing number of (temporary) renters, or...?
> Do you believe this is an honest characterization of their core goal?
Yes. I can quote Rothstein about racist motivations[0] or Marohn about short-sighted financial recklessness,[1] but I believe more people have nostalgia than malice. Even if they deploy structural racism and racist rhetoric.
Most people become set in their ways very quickly, and have difficulty imagining what is good other than what they thought was good when they were young. By now, you cannot find a native-born American who grew up in a time before cars became supreme. Most Americans don’t even remember a time before the Suburban Experiment.[2]
So, yes, people will bring up building heights, and respecting the neighborhood, and traffic, and parking über alles, but I think the main motivation is that they can’t imagine someone else can have a good life that is a benefit to the community other than the life that they think is a good life.
[0] https://smile.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segr...
[1] https://www.strongtowns.org
[2] https://www.strongtowns.org/curbside-chat-1/2015/12/14/ameri...
Right, I'm pretty sure I specifically acknowledged this in my previous comment.
why some feel because they have it already that they should be able to exclude others from having it in the future
If some hypothetical resource has a determinate carrying capacity and any greater usage degrades the resource for everyone, it's not unreasonable to exclude people. See the fixed number of backcountry permits Yosemite issues. Some things simply cannot be had by everyone. Given this, how do you decide who gets, and who does not get?
We really only have three systems that I know of- 1) lottery, ala Yosemite permits 2) free market, ala Bay Area low density housing, also ski condos 3) precedent/i-was-there-first, ala people who already own a house there get to stay there as it becomes desirable, also prescriptive easements of public trails on private land
I don't think a concept of a fractional ownership exists because, well, it's not yours.
If you really want some guarantee that your immediate radius will meet some sort of standards, it sounds like you'd want to be part of an HOA. I personally would never want to be part of one (who likes being told what to do?) but they could help protect property values from that one neighbor who could be a problem.
"Everyone should maximize the income from their property up to the limit of law" is a recipe for for having no neighborhoods or communities. It's the usual fallacy of treating people as fungible commodities.
HOAs are terrible, they are inevitably staffed with busybodies. We can agree on that!
It certainly is in San Francisco at least. Well, probably not literally zoning, but regulations around it make the home owners in an area de facto owners of it in many ways.
I see the current housing crisis as a direct result of this.
You’re asking rational actors to make irrational decisions. The results are what you’d expect.
As I mention in a sibling comment, you might see changes in a decade or two, but no sooner.
I am not opposed to efforts related to increasing the housing supply (although I do think it’s a fool’s errand in the Bay Area as demand is insatiable due to the tech industry and foreign money seeking a safe asset store), I’m just describing the uphill climb these endeavors face. It’s hard to fiddle with a core component of the economy (property law).
That would be unthinkable today though.
Like, do you think if they bulldozed Manhattan to a big lawn that would make the price of the brownstones and single family homes actually worth more?
Your house would be millions more if your neighbors were allowed to develop to build market rate housing. People want the price per unit to go down by building more density. That means each lot will be worth more since you can replace it with more units. You own a home that's on a lot. You win financially if people are allowed to build. Think about how much a developer would offer you or your kids for your home after you don't need it if they're allowed to actually build. You'd be leaving your kids a fortune.
I don't know a whole lot about it, but in NYC they have some concept of air rights, i.e. a particular 2D plot of land also has a height limit, and somehow those can be changed by buying up two plots and adding them together. And then most everywhere is the idea of "I have a right to this particular view in that direction, and maybe also this other direction over here, you can't build a building to block that view unless you compensate me - oh but wait no I don't want to be compensated actually, I want to just be able to prevent you from building anything."
So at one time people resolved such a dispute with bribes, or threats, or murder. And then later on it was resolved with bribes and elections, where only land owners had the right to vote so renters couldn't just come in and change all the rules. Today renters can vote, and basically if your town has more politically involved renters than owners, they can change the building codes, and get more high density housing built or whatever.
Anyway, it could be worse: no one wants to live there and it depreciates.
If what happens on the properties around you is critical to your enjoyment of your property, you should have bought them too.
You can't go to a fancy restaurant, order a salad, and expect to get a steak for free because it's necessary for you to properly enjoy the salad. If you really want a steak, you're going to have to pay for the steak.
The restaurant example is actually perfect because a big part of what you pay for in a restaurant is not just the food. It is the service and ambience.
Edit: My home price is based on access to the subways. I don’t own the subways. We happen to live in a system where the subways are run by the government, not privately owned. But regardless, I would do everything in my power to make sure the subways stay as good as possible, partly because I use them myself all the time, and partly because my home value is tied to them.
This is demanding that the restaurant leave perfectly good floor area clear and let a line form around the block, because more tables would ruin its quiet ambiance.
They aren't trying to use political power to force you to give up what you've helped build, they are trying to buy land and build homes. It simply isn't ok for people to prevent other from living near the so they can turn their "communities" into elitist social clubs.
Foreign buyers are irrelevant. They wouldn't be getting involved at all if homes in CA weren't so absurdly overpriced.