| ▲ | toomuchtodo 3 days ago |
| Certainly, but I'll also argue that single family zoning needs to go, and upzoning enabled anywhere reasonable. Do existing owners not like flophouses? Do they not like density? Do they not like any change at all? All of the above. Property owners are entitled to their property, they are not entitled to stop efforts around them to increase housing supply or density. (as someone who has acquired lots, rezoned, and have contracted to have multifamily built in such areas) |
|
| ▲ | SoftTalker 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I do agree that one contributor to the housing crisis in many areas is the lack of SRO and boarding houses, which used to be much more common at least in urban areas. Those are all largely gone now, and they used to be common entry-level housing options for young singles. If I owned a house would I object to the neighbor taking in a boarder or two? No, but I could see being unhappy about them moving out and turning the house into an SRO rental, especially if those tenants created a nuisance in the neighborhood. Same as a problematic Air BnB. I think a good compromise might be allowing SRO/boarding if the owner also lives in the house. That is what my town is discussing for at least some residential neighborhoods. SROs should also be more often allowed in already multifamily/high density residental areas. |
|
| ▲ | oceanplexian 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Property owners are entitled to their property, they are not entitled to stop efforts around them to increase housing supply or density. Property owners are absolutely entitled to their property but that also includes things like noise, sanitation, and crime. It's called an HOA or a master planned community and approximately 30% of the US population lives in one. Few people like HOAs but still engage in them despite all the downsides because they specifically don't want to live in high density housing where people are packing 10 or 15 unrelated people to a house, inviting crime, noise, sanitary issues, and all the other negatives of high density housing. |
| |
| ▲ | lazyasciiart 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Most people who engage in a HOA do so because existing regulation requires newly developed subdivisions to create their own local government to do the work of providing streets, etc, that should be done by the existing city government. | |
| ▲ | ratelimitsteve 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | it's called an HOA or a master planned community and its a voluntary agreement between homeowners, not something any one homeowner is entitled to over the protestations of others. People who want to join an HOA are entitled to do that, and people who don't are entitled to not, but that's different from the law because the law is not optional or voluntary. It is, by its very nature, a restriction on the liberties of people without their express consent. What you're talking about is very, very different and deserves to be discussed independently of this. |
|
|
| ▲ | bpt3 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Property owners absolutely are entitled to stop efforts around them to increase housing supply or density, and I say this as someone who also has done similar work to you. If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right, even if other people who can't afford to live there or would just like to see higher density would really like them to change their mind. |
| |
| ▲ | ProfessorLayton 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right, even if other people who can't afford to live there or would just like to see higher density would really like them to change their mind. The only reasonable way for them to be entitled to prevent density is for them to own the property and not build anything. >If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right, even if other people who can't afford to live there or would just like to see higher density would really like them to change their mind. Well then those people should buy the land and keep it low density. Can't afford it? Too bad. Pro-housing folks aren't trying to force people to do something with their property, it's the other way around. | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Indeed, they want the authority over the land without buying or otherwise having to expend finances to control the land. | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 3 days ago | parent [-] | | That's not what I'm talking about at all. Zoning regulations should reflect the desires of a community, and there's no inherent reason they can't be more restrictive than yimbys would like. | | |
| ▲ | array_key_first 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is just a tragedy of the commons situation. Obviously, every single existing property owner wants it to stop right now. Because more housing means more supply, means less money for them. They naturally want to pull the ladder up. But if you just let them, then there's 0 new homes being built in the US. And then the economy implodes. We have to toe a line necessarily. If you just allow the tragedy of the commons to happen 100%, then everyone loses. Everyone, including those who benefit. Its like feudalism. Feudalism seems like a fantastic idea if you're a feudal lord. But... Its actually not. No, you lose too. Imagine how much richer those feudal lords could have been had they not impeded the progress of Europe for hundreds of years. | | |
| ▲ | BirdieNZ 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Obviously, every single existing property owner wants it to stop right now. Because more housing means more supply, means less money for them. Upzoning actually increases land values, because it gives you the option to develop your land into a higher-productivity use (and hence higher potential rents). NIMBYs in my observation tend to be anti-change; they bought with the neighbourhood a particular way and want it to stay that way. Upzoning brings in a change in the vibe and demographic that they don't want. | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Exactly. Most people don't buy a home with the hope that the surroundings will change drastically. And of course is there is a change for the better, the same people who complain about about NIMBYs will complain about gentrification. |
|
| |
| ▲ | triceratops 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Zoning regulations should reflect the desires of a community The community can express its desires by building whatever kind of housing they want on their property. What you're talking about is my property having to reflect the desires of the rest of the community. | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 3 days ago | parent [-] | | No, the existing community made decisions that already exist. Potential new residents should have no say, and actual new residents knew what they were before they purchased the property. |
| |
| ▲ | ratelimitsteve 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | you used the word "entitled" though, and that has a specific meaning. why would nimbys be "entitled" to stop high density housing but yimbys not be "entitled" to do it? this contradiction resolves itself very neatly in a system where yimbys get to do what they want with their property and nimbys get to do what they want with theirs. It only gets complex when one person wants complete control of their property and also partial control over someone else's, and they dress up their own personal best interest as "the desires of the community". | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Because "yimby"s go to higher government to force localities to adopt rules they vote against, i.e. they get their way with authoritarian policies that apply outside of "their backyard". Some even think there should be national laws! They want their policies applied to essentially an entire continent. Nimbys typically don't care about things that are not part of their locality. San Francisco wants giant skyscrapers? Cool, none in my city, thanks. That's why we chose to live in an area that bans high density. From what I've seen the actual policies being pushed by "yimbys" seem much closer to yiyby. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Nimbys typically don't care about things that are not part of their locality Yimbys go even smaller. They don't care about things that are not in their backyard. You want an apartment building on your land? Cool, none on my land thanks. If you care about freedom, go with yimbys. The nimbys are the ones putting encumbrances on your property. | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Obviously I don't care about that freedom. Just like I don't care about the freedom to put up ugly billboards on your land. That's why we bought a home in an area that bans those things. It also requires ugly parking lots to be set back behind a tree line, and new residential developments must have bike trails that connect to the wider network. I'm happy for you to live somewhere where you have that freedom though. I know "no rules" appeals to some! | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 3 days ago | parent [-] | | So you don't care about other people's freedoms but yimbys are bad because they're "authoritarian". Got it, totally cool, logical, and consistent. You could just be honest and say "I want to use government power to suit my needs, even if it costs other people. But no one else can do that". It's pretty selfish but at least we'll know where you stand. | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah that's why I moved somewhere where those were the agreed local regulations and everyone else was on the same page. That's why local governance is good. Everyone can find somewhere where they can be happy. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > everyone else was on the same page You can't know that though. Unless you hold a referendum to renew the rules every year and they pass by a 100% majority. The only honest way to do it is without invoking government power. Move to a gated community. Have a neighborhood association, funded solely by residents, whose bylaws require that it gets to have any property up for sale in the community as long as it matches any other accepted offer on it. If you want your "dream community" spend your own money. Don't go into other people's pockets. | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't subscribe to pure anarchism. We also have local public schools, parks, libraries, bike trails, etc. funded by "other people's" (our) pockets. It's fine. The US at least has 10 million sq km. Plenty of room for different types of communities to exist. The are cities in multiple directions a few miles away with less restrictive zoning if people like the area but want apartments, townhomes, or advertising. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | danaris 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | And this is because individual property rights must not be sacrosanct in a civilized society. We already have a number of rules of what you can and can't do with your private property that I think most people agree on. You can't build a slaughterhouse right in the middle of a residential area. You can't dump your garbage into the water flowing through your property. Etc. Those are rules we all agree on because they have immediate and very visible primary effects. The things we're talking about now are less visible secondary effects, but they're still very real. The ability of our entire society to be able to securely and affordably house all its members is a much stronger imperative than the ability of people in any particular area to have nice views, or neighbors who all share the same socioeconomic class/skin color/native language as them. | | |
| ▲ | immibis 3 days ago | parent [-] | | We should probably try to keep them to a minimum though, lest we stifle innovation. You wouldn't want to stifle innovation, would you? Or inadvertently destroy shareholder value? |
|
| |
| ▲ | tptacek 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are all kinds of desires local communities might have that are proscribed by state law. Why should this one be different? If you don't want those laws passed, organize for a candidate who will oppose them. If the state goes the other way on a land-use issue within that state, it's hard for me to see why there's some moral mandate that local NIMBYs be allowed to overrule them. |
| |
| ▲ | immibis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The whole theoretical conception of property rights is that a property right is the right to control what happens on your property, which implies you don't have the right to control what happens on other people's property, because that right belongs to other people. You can't eat your cake and have it. If you want property to be a neighbourhood thing then you should also be required to let the benefits of your own property accrue to your whole neighbourhood and not just yourself. So no tall fences for example. How come everyone else should have to do what you want, but you shouldn't have to do what everyone else wants? | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll 3 days ago | parent [-] | | My neighborhood does in fact ban any kind of front yard fence, and I'd have to check but the only backyard fences I recall seeing are those around pools, which are legally required for child safety reasons. |
| |
| ▲ | wqaatwt 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Severely limiting the property rights of anyone owning land there doesn’t necessarily seem reasonable | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's not a severe limitation to tell someone that everyone who lives in an area agreed to something that they'll have to adhere to if they want to live there also. | | |
| ▲ | wqaatwt 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It obvious is. I’am not saying whether collectivism is good or bad, though. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | bpt3 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The only reasonable way for them to be entitled to prevent density is for them to own the property and not build anything. Of course. > Well then those people should buy the land and keep it low density. Can't afford it? Too bad. Pro-housing folks aren't trying to force people to do something with their property, it's the other way around. Pro-housing people in my area absolutely are trying to force people to do things with their property and in their neighborhood by barring covenants and other restrictions that can be put in place by municipalities and HOAs. | | |
| ▲ | hamburglar 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Barring restrictions is absolutely not “forcing” anyone to do anything. Take away all restrictions on my lot and I am still not forced to develop on it. | | |
| ▲ | ratelimitsteve 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | A law negating a covenant everyone entered into willingly and freely does kinda alter the deal after its made. I do wholeheartedly agree that removing zoning restrictions doesn't impinge on anyone's liberty though. | | |
| ▲ | wqaatwt 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > and freely If that was the case i.e. nobody wanted to build anything new on their land why would the “convenant” be necessary. Or is the idea that former owners can impose these decisions they made on anyone they sell the property to? | | |
| ▲ | ratelimitsteve 2 days ago | parent [-] | | We allow all sorts of encumbrances to transfer with property. You can sell a house with an easement that lets neighbors use some amount of your property for access, with a tenant who has a contractual right to stay to the end of a lease regardless of what the new owner wants, or with a covenant to limit development. Hell, a couple years back an entire mall sold for $20 with the agreement that the buyer was assuming all of the seller's debt and also the seller's contractual obligation to perform road maintenance. If you couldn't transfer these agreements with a sale they'd be useless even absent a sale. Either no one would buy the property because its unsellable and the value would plummet or you would buy it with the encumbrances, transfer ownership from your left hand to your right hand to remove them and then do what you want. |
| |
| ▲ | tptacek 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Covenants are already heavily regulated and have a pretty icky history in the US. |
| |
| ▲ | bpt3 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Let me know your address so I can buy the adjacent properties and force you to live next to a landfill or move away from your now-worthless home. | | |
| ▲ | hamburglar 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It may surprise you but I’m not actually scared of that happening. I’m actually zoned for the house next door to me to turn into a seven story building, which many in my city think is horrifying, but I’m not scared of that either. | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If you legitimately would have no issues being surrounded by a landfill, you're such an outlier that your opinion is basically meaningless. | | |
| ▲ | hamburglar a day ago | parent [-] | | You’re jumping to conclusions. I didn’t say I wouldn’t have any issue with it; I said I’m not scared it’s going to happen. I have evaluated the risk and am sufficiently certain that won’t happen. The lots around my house are far too expensive to turn into landfill. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | msteffen 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Honestly the biggest reason I became a pro-density advocate is because low-density communities are almost always tax-revenue-negative[1], given that the cost of things like roads, water and sewer infrastructure scale with land area. What NIMBYs often seem to want are the amenities of city living (like a sewer instead of a septic tank in your yard) without the people, and that just doesn’t work. [1]: https://youtu.be/7Nw6qyyrTeI | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The suburbs I've lived in have spent far more on things that scale with population (primarily education) than things that scale with area. You also can't split revenue from downtown commercial areas out from surrounding residential like that. Are businesses "subsidizing" residents? Of course not. That doesn't even make sense as a question. | | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Posting a video from a highly biased source is not very convincing. Almost every household with a child is tax revenue negative, and I don't think you're suggesting we reform education funding to correct that. | | |
| ▲ | msteffen 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Look, the people making this argument all come from a fairly aligned political unit. If you start hearing this perspective from a broad coalition of ideologically diverse groups, it would mean the thesis has become consensus. I agree with you that the guy's tone is not great, so here's a slightly different framing: https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/4/17/sprawl-is-... (strong towns' emphasis is on ending federal infrastructure loans that leave cities and suburbs with infrastructure they don't have the tax base to maintain over a generation. Which I think leads to similar conclusions but they're careful not to say that). Their framing also highlights the important financial difference between children and sewers, though: the former get less expensive and more productive over time, and the latter do the opposite, which is how the problems happen. | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm a big fan of StrongTowns and this is the article that NotjustBikes used as a launching point for the specific episode of fuckcars porn that you posted: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017-1-9-the-real-reason... Fiscal soundness at the local level should not be a political issue, but IMO the progressive left has turned it into one by attacking anyone and everyone who isn't in rigid alignment with every element of their housing agenda, which includes some pretty radical (and largely undesirable) changes for most Americans. And then of course when people balk at these undesirable changes, they're called racist, selfish, or both. I don't agree that you can really claim one part of town is subsidizing others based on the analysis from firms like urban3. Sure, if you stuck 10 businesses on a plot of land where only 1 exists now and those businesses all thrive, tax revenue would be higher for that plot of land. Is there demand for 10 more businesses in your city or town, times every drive thru fast food joint or Starbucks? Is it actually a problem that businesses are paying more in taxes than they consume in services, which lets residents pay less than they consume? Would those businesses be there if their owners couldn't live in the type of housing they wanted in the city? There are so many intertwined issues that seem impossible to decouple to me, in addition to the obvious issue that the school system is the primary consumer of tax revenue in almost every area and the taxes paid by parents don't come close to covering that expense. It's also not a coincidence that they picked an economically depressed area with a fairly high crime rate for this analysis. If they looked at a city with residents who made the median household income for the US, or even above it, I suspect you'd see a very different picture (though the larger point is still worth considering and largely valid). I do agree completely that the federal and state governments are just setting these places up for failure (and future rounds of external funding), but I don't see YIMBYs talking about that. They just seem to be angry that people are living more comfortably than they would like in lower density housing instead of embracing the urban lifestyle they are so passionate about, and want to force everyone to align to their vision not for fiscal stability, but for ideological reasons. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right This is an opinion, not a right codified in statute, and state laws can be enacted to override local planning ability to prevent upzoning. People who live in their community are entitled to affordable housing (again, my opinion, maybe not yours). Property owners leave, property owners die; the path to success is to simply continue to grind against the nimby machine. https://www.yimbylaw.org/ | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I disagree that people are entitled to affordable housing where they desire to live. There are neighborhoods I could not afford to live in, and I am not entitled to live there. I live where I can afford, and this is the case up and down the market. If I want to live in some community, it's up to me to be able to afford it. That said, if I can afford to buy property and want to build higher-density lower-cost rental housing on it, that should generally be my right as well. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The issue isn't that some communities are expensive. The issue is the deliberate engineering of extra housing expense extrinsic to the market itself using the force of law, which is a capability home rule grants exclusionary communities if not policed carefully. |
| |
| ▲ | bpt3 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's an inherent right, otherwise CA wouldn't have to pass laws to override it (which is an overreach IMO). No one is entitled to affordable housing in any specific location. |
| |
| ▲ | TimorousBestie 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right I’d be interested as to any country that recognizes this as an explicit right. | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Explicit? Probably not. But zoning is handled at the local level traditionally. |
| |
| ▲ | tptacek 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No it isn't. | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Well consider me convinced by your thoughtful response! I guess that overrides centuries of precedent. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 3 days ago | parent [-] | | There's been centuries of precedent for all sorts of things we'd recoil from now. | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 3 days ago | parent [-] | | A community of SFH residences makes you recoil? You're an extreme minority if so, which makes this no better than your initial statement. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | koolba 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Certainly, but I'll also argue that single family zoning needs to go, and upzoning enabled anywhere reasonable. Do existing owners not like flophouses? Do they not like density? Do they not like any change at all? All of the above. Property owners are entitled to their property, they are not entitled to stop efforts around them to increase housing supply or density. Of course they're entitled to stop efforts to change the world around them. If you moved into a neighborhood with a minimum lot size was X acres, it's a reasonable expectation that it remains as such. If someone comes along and not only wants to change that, but also build multi unit apartment complexes across the street from you, why should you not have a say? Clearly the person was not allowed to do that before changing the zoning rules so why can't I try to stop them from changing them at all? There's nothing racist about wanting to live a quiet suburban or rural life where you can neither see nor hear the next house over. |
| |
| ▲ | supertrope 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | People pick housing based on current conditions and want it to never change. This is very understandable. Using force of law to maintain aesthetic levels and social class divides is where the perverse incentives set in. The US Supreme Court approved the earliest zoning laws based on health justification. The dicta in the court opinion cited cities as parasitically infringing on bucolic greenery. We now see the logical endpoint of restrictive zoning. Million dollar houses that are mostly the right to live at that address (the structure is small and worn). Landlords having tremendous power over tenants. | | |
| ▲ | tw04 3 days ago | parent [-] | | >People pick housing based on current conditions and want it to never change. Correct, people making what is for most the largest financial investment and commitment of their lives want to have control over what happens to it. When you have a 30 year mortgage on a piece of property that is many times your gross yearly income, you're kind of invested in the most literal sense of the word. It would be one thing if the re-zoning included an offer to buy or move every house within X distance that has property values and "standard of living" directly affected by the re-zoning. But in almost all cases when the re-zoning occurs, the response is: sucks to be you. I think part of the problem is people are framing this discussion as if the whole US is silicon valley with extremely limited land when it's not. There are plenty of places trying to force multi-family dwellings in existing neighborhoods instead of just finding vacant property on the edge of town. Why? Because the developer will make more money if it's in an already developed area, at the expense of all the existing homeowners. | | |
| ▲ | danaris 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | OK, now extend that line of thought just a little bit further. Why will the developer make more money if it's in an already developed area? Because that area has better access to shops, schools, and workplaces. Sure, you could build a giant apartment building out on the edge of town—the land would certainly be cheaper! But, given how things are today, it's unlikely you'd ever fill it in a way that would recoup your investment. In order to make something like that work, what we'd really need is proper public transport that reliably stopped at (or near) such a development, with well-sited stops in town in order to allow residents to do all the things they need to do. To reach the things that are in the town. | |
| ▲ | lazyasciiart 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > There are plenty of places trying to force multi-family dwellings in existing neighborhoods instead of just finding vacant property on the edge of town. Why? Because the vision of quarter acre blocks from sea to sea is gut-wrenching and we would prefer to limit the bounds of human building so that some forests and wild lands remain. | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >I think part of the problem is people are framing this discussion as if the whole US is silicon valley with extremely limited land when it's not. I think a large part of the problem is that states and to a lesser degree the feds are trying to compensate for problems created by places like SV (not that every state doesn't have comparable places doing similar) so they write rules that incentivize X or Y and so you wind up with weird "a bunch of duplex townhouses on .2ac" developments in the middle of nowhere and other places they don't make sense because developers are naturally pairing the incentivized types of construction with the cheapest suitable land. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tptacek 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's nothing intrinsically racist about having lot size preferences, but the lot sizes we have in most 20th century vintage zoning codes are in fact racist by design. Minimum lot sizes were a way of keeping Black families from crossing borders from redlined ghettoes into white neighborhoods or suburbs, by preventing people from subdividing lots into smaller, more affordable houses. Meanwhile: it's perfectly understandable that people don't want to see change in their neighborhood, or that they buy a property in the expectation that everything good about it will remain. But that's not a reasonable constraint for the law to operate under. You do not in fact have a strict right to control things that happen outside the borders of your own lot. Some community restrictions are reasonable. We broadly agree that it's not OK for someone to open a tannery in the middle of a suburban residential block. Others are not; for instance, neighbors several blocks over will argue that they have a right not to endure extra traffic when our local hospital, the largest employer and best hospital in the region, plans a small addition. The most important phenomenon here is hyperlocalism. The immediate neighbors of new proposed residential developments will reliably oppose it. They'll also make up the overwhelming majority of those who show up for public comment, because normal people don't turn out to support new apartment buildings built across town. But if you accept that resistance as a given right, you're essentially saying nothing will ever get built. The muni I'm in has managed to go from 70,000 residents to 50,000 by consistently applying this strategy, so it's not even accurate to say it's about "change", so much as it is about strangling out as many residents as possible to achieve a targeted demography. |
|
