How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

It's not so much that urban development kills "character", it's that current urban development methods are ugly. They have no class to them. The "not in my backyard" argument will always be brought about by people who's previously beautiful surroundings are replaced by brick rectangles with evenly spaced windows. The trick is to make urban areas attractive but not gentrified.

They should just repeal zoning laws entirely. Maybe make an exception for polluting heavy industry, or for people using government money or government-backed loans. It should probably even be a constitutional amendment.<p>People who want quiet suburbs can pool together a corporation to own a planned community. That limits the scope of their NIMBYism to just their community, and as shareholders they could vote on whether to get paid for selling their land to Walmart or Google or the people wanting to set up high-density apartment complexes. Plus they have an even stronger voice in their immediate community, so they can do things like build walls to keep the homeless out. I think getting bought out as a shareholder would warm them to the idea; if Walmart buys the land next door you just want to complain, but if you&#x27;re getting some of the money you might be in favor.<p>The government should only have the power to prescribe structural integrity rules, fire safety codes, building codes for number of exits, etc.

I feel that in many of these discussions, it&#x27;s beneficial to see NIMBYism as a response to an incomplete insurance market, as described in [0].<p>This is not to say it is a complete or normative defense of NIMBYism, but rather that a lot of knee-jerk SJW sort of reaction is missing the point and failing to address, or even really attempt to understand, where NIMBYs are coming from.<p>Part of me wonders if this could be solved by tech, particularly insurance products that offer homeowners protection against the variety of ways that seemingly-great expansion projects can go wrong. I&#x27;d enjoy working on that sort of problem, except that so much of the current interest in this entire topic is political, and politicians have some incentive to maintain zoning-like systems because it offers them (the politicians) great opportunities for rent seeking, by being the gatekeepers of an approval process that should instead be more straightforward and just hedged by homeowners in the form of custom insurance products.<p>[0] &quot;Why are there NIMBYs?&quot; William Fischel, &lt; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dartmouth.edu&#x2F;~wfischel&#x2F;Papers&#x2F;00-04.PDF" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dartmouth.edu&#x2F;~wfischel&#x2F;Papers&#x2F;00-04.PDF</a> &gt;

I live in Manhattan with its very high housing costs.<p>As Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser, Economics Nobelist Paul Krugmann, Financial Times columnist and an economist Tim Harford have been saying, the issues are politically induced housing scarcity through the use of zoning density restrictions and also overuse of historic landmark status. The use of politics to create artificial scarcity to create market inefficiencies is called &quot;rent-seeking&quot; in Microeconomics.<p>Another example was the NYC limit of 13,000 Taxi medallions which lead to a market value for medallions of $1.2 million. Then Uber&#x2F;Lyft came along to disrupt the market and provide more transportation in NYC and the value of the medallions dropped to less than $700 K.<p>I believe that Congress is looking into the zoning form of &quot;rent-seeking&quot; with the understanding that zoning is not necessarily local but might be federal to override this inherent unfairness where older people housing expensive and scare for younger people.<p>For more info: Edward Glaeser: Build Big Bill (Mayor of NYC) <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nydailynews.com&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;build-big-bill-article-1.1913739" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nydailynews.com&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;build-big-bill-article-1....</a><p>Tim Harford: The Undercover Economist. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Undercover-Economist-Revised-Updated-Exposing&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0199926514" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Undercover-Economist-Revised-Updated-...</a><p>Creating these politically induced market inefficiencies are what create an inherent transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy and from the young to the old and of course is a major contributor to financial inequality.

In a realistic scenario, de-regulated zoning around San Francisco would benefit developers and lenders while worsening the financial burden of the middle class.<p>If zoning were de-regulated around San Francisco, I doubt that many of you would pay much less than what you&#x27;d pay now for housing, assuming you&#x27;re not making less than the AMI.<p>San Francisco had an Area Median Income in 2014 of $83,222. Those who make below this qualify for affordable housing. If you want to imagine what kind of housing policy the bay area would implement, look to what the DelBlasio administration is doing [1]. In 2015, the AMI for a family of four in New York City was $86,300. According to the DelBlasio administration&#x27;s plan, &quot;there will be affordable housing available for each level of income from “Extremely Low Income” to “Middle Income.” The middle group, “Low Income” will benefit the most, receiving nearly 60 percent of the 200,000 projected units. Each of the other levels of income will receive eight to 12 percent of the units.&quot;<p>So, given that you wouldn&#x27;t qualify for affordable housing, you&#x27;ll end up buying new property at market-driven prices. If developers were to flood the market with thousands of additional units, how would that affect prices? If you were a developer, wouldn&#x27;t you try to maximize profit for your investors? With that given, developers would collude. They&#x27;d roll out new, optimally priced units over time. They&#x27;ll make excuses to policymakers as to why projects are delayed.<p>Today, the middle class can&#x27;t even get a chance to buy something that it can&#x27;t afford. With de-regulated housing, the former constraint is lifted and new homeowners will be heavily debt-burdened with super-jumbo non-conforming mortgages. However, you&#x27;ll have somewhere to live.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amny.com&#x2F;real-estate&#x2F;affordable-housing-in-new-york-city-mayor-bill-de-blasio-s-plan-explained-1.11761817" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amny.com&#x2F;real-estate&#x2F;affordable-housing-in-new-yo...</a>

These things are not so simple. Even in that places where they build baby, build! There is inequality. Brazil, China, etc. Brazil is diverse, China is pretty homogenous, both have large inequalities. It&#x27;s not a one dimensional problem.

&gt; The lost opportunities for development may theoretically reduce the output of the United States economy by as much as $1.5 trillion a year<p>We should also do away with National Parks and Forests, which are nothing more than zoning laws at the Federal level.<p>For that matter, state and local parks get in the way too.<p>How much lost economic output are restrictions on real estate development in Golden Gate Park costing the city of San Francisco?<p>How many more people could be housed there if the city simply got out of the way and let the developers build twenty or thirty thousand new units in there?<p>Why does Federal law even allow a local community like San Francisco so much control over its land?

The only viable solution, keeping both sides happy, is to have a kickass public transportation system.<p>I live in SF. Some of the working class people I meet live as far away as Richmond, Vallejo and Gilroy. They spend hours commuting back and forth; but they have no choice. It kills the &#x27;quality of life&#x27;, but what can one do?<p>If, for example, it was possible to get from Richmond to SF in 15 minutes at any time of day or night, it would make a world of difference. The pressure to live in SF would be eased, knowing that any time you wanted to enjoy the city life, it was a quick 15 minute ride away.<p>Communities hate more development, because people don&#x27;t want to disturb their little paradise, which they worked so hard to create. And these days, it is much easier for people to move; heck, many people live nomadic lives, spending months here, and months there.<p>Something else to think about: an influx of residents has second-order effects: more schools, more police, more fire, etc. etc. Who&#x27;ll pay for that? The taxes will flow over decades, but these things need to be built right away!

This article has gotten a fair bit of attention here in Santa Monica. We have the highest rents in LA, possibly one of the strongest anti-development communities, and aggressive rent control.<p>This fall there will be an initiative on the ballot called &quot;L.U.V.E.&quot; which will require any development over two stories to get voter approval. It&#x27;s actually split the anti-development activists apart, as some of them think it goes too far.<p>It&#x27;s a beautiful city, but part of me feels like it&#x27;s a ticking time bomb due to lack of education in society. Much like there was broad rejection of vaccinations here, there&#x27;s rejection of the concept of supply &amp; demand (some calling it a &quot;Republican conspiracy.&quot;)

There must be massive opportunities to manage these things in a smarter way as illustrated by the $1.5 trillion a year mentioned in the article. For example in SF they could build aesthetically appealing tall buildings with much of the profits going to the government rather than private developers and use some of that to build better accom for the homeless who clutter the streets. Everyone wins pretty much - you could give a bit of compensation to people next to the new buildings who might be a bit inconvenienced.<p>Maybe someone could do a startup to sort this stuff. I&#x27;ve been thinking about it but not cracked it.

I don&#x27;t think liberal zoning is the problem. I&#x27;ve seen my city go through massive changes in the last 30 years, top of the list being a radical increase, a liberalization, of zoning. They are allowing more and bigger developments. Multi-story and multi-unit developments are everywhere, but that isn&#x27;t making housing any more affordable.<p>A piece of land with a liberal zoning is worth more. It is a target for redevelopment in order to max out the zoning. The net result in my local is the steady replacement of anything old (ie 10+ years) by newer ridiculously large replacements. Apartments and other attached units are now so expensive, and prices rising so steadily, that the logical thing to do is let them sit empty. The pittance one might claw back in rent pales in comparison to rising prices, and who needs pesky tenants anyway.<p>So... liberal zoning --&gt; rising land values&#x2F;prices --&gt; redevelopment is better than renting --&gt; fewer rental units = higher rent. It&#x27;s true up and down the west coast. Now if a government told owners that no, they are not going to rip down that apartment block to replace it with luxury living, all-one-level, condos (ie for old&#x2F;rich retirees) then perhaps prices might stabilize, sending more units into the rental market and so also stabilizing rents.

Does anyone really think that once they own property in a certain area that they are gonna believe in the &#x27;anything goes&#x27; mentality? &#x27;Growth&#x27; is subjective. &quot;Hey look at all the great businesses in my neighborhood bringing in taxes! I mean sure they are all pot pharmacies and bars that my kid gets to pass on his way to elementary school but you know GROWTH!&quot;