It's not a marketing page, really. I made it. Did you see my vlog? It's too bad it looks so pro... it looks like a real estate developer built it :)

But Senator's Wiener's FAQ answers the question you ask: https://extranewsfeed.com/my-transit-density-bill-sb-827-ans...

he says "First, most cities and towns don’t operate their own transit systems, given that transit agencies are typically separate from cities or regional in nature. Thus, very few cities even have the power to reduce transit service, even if they wanted to do so in order to avoid SB 827.

Second, while communities could organize to fight new transit stations or to reduce bus service, let’s also be real: people already fight transit expansions in their neighborhoods."

It's definitely a "marketing page" in that it's only purpose is to convince people to support sb-827.

> I could definitely foresee more homeowners blocking development of new routes/stations.

Say, you own a piece of land with a house near public transit. Since the local township can no longer forbid building an apartment building on your land, you can probably sell your land to a developer for $$$$, so you make much more money than selling just a single house.

And because you didn't want to live near public transit, with the $$$$ you can spend $$$ to buy a house that is sufficiently far away from public transit and still make a good profit in the trade.

So if you like money more than your current house, why would you oppose?

This is happening where I live and the local people have all kinds of random reasons for opposing it. Some irrationally think their property will be worth less having an apartment building next door. Some don't care about value but just don't want the apartment building next door and refuse to move because they're settled in. Some think it'll create a slum. Some think the change is just an excuse for the local government to collect more money from more housing units. Most probably just don't like change because they're old and afraid of the unknown.

Many people don’t value money more than their current house. They bought a nice house in a nice area and don’t want to move. Depending on area and financial situation, they also might not like their increased real estate tax assessments. It beehives them to partake in NIMBYism.

  It beehives them

I think you mean "behooves them".

That can't be right, bees don't have hooves.

lol. Yes. Stung by fat-fingers and overzealous auto-correction.

That's how it's supposed to work, but at least in Portland it's not panning out:

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/9/revisiting-what...

That article literally gets supply and demand wrong...

Indeed, thanks for posting this. I’m concerned that, while well-intentioned, the bill may not help.

How does that article in any way compare in rigor to the most famous paper on the US housing crises?

Good point. I didn't consider the fact that land zoned for higher density would fetch more money. From that perspective, if your goal is to increase the monetary value of your investment, it seems like a win

Everyone wins except for one class of people when you actually allow building density to respond to demand. The only group of people who don't want that to happen are those who own houses in urban sprawl that would lose value if the artificial limits on density were lifted that allowed people to actually live in the city affordably like a lot of them want to do.

More density does not mean more crime or more "deplorables" unless you actively enable people get into that position. It does not tarnish the environment worse than endless seas of sprawl housing and resultant insane amounts spent on transit. Literally the only reason to not enable growth is to profit from its absence.

The difficulty is in getting people to understand this.

For example, the entire point of doing this is to get housing costs down, and people hear that and think it will cause their property values to go down.

But those are actually two different things.

Housing costs are per square foot. They go down when there is a bunch of new housing because of supply and demand.

Property values include the value of the land. If you zone for high density, it causes the land to be worth significantly more because people will pay you a million dollars for it so they can bulldoze your house and build a tower there.

Only if your land is directly built upon. For everyone else it cuts the housing shortage if more housing units are on the market and reduces prices.

The plan is to pin the requirements to 'transit routes at a specific date' not float them to 'what is the transit route today', so changing the routes can't be used to manipulate the legislation.

In China, during the past decade, the property prices always rise even from just a hint of a new subway station. So blocking development of new routes/stations is just dampening the housing price, the last thing most homeowners want.

Of course, in the United States people are more comfortable with their own cars, and less reliant on public transport. So the effect remains to be seen.

> Since that's a marketing page for SB827, can someone explain to me how it doesn't ultimately create an incentive against public transit?

How does building high density housing near public transportation incentivize people to not use that public transportation?

Not against using it, against building it in the first place. Say someone lives in the suburbs and doesn't want to be upzoned. They could vote to block a bus stop from being added