The second quote does sort of chime with another NIMBY thread, that the WAY additional supply affects incumbent property owners' value is that it brings in undesirable (low income, or other ethnic group, or other culture/behavior) residents. It "ruins" the neighborhood not architecturally, but demographically.
That said, I second Addison’s belief that fear of loss of pecuniary value is the basis of much opposition to land use and building code reform. And part is just unawareness of the benefits to the city that reform will bring.
A lot of that is imagining "the projects". Lots of places have relatively mixed incomes (still on average pretty high, though) and are perfectly fine in terms of those sorts of concerns. I think the whole crime wave/cities as hellholes thing cast a really long shadow over how people think about all of this.
I agree. I hope I did not come across a endorsing the demographic ruination view! :)
Still, the attitude does exist and YIMBY-ism ought to be inteested in removing (bad) policing and (bad) schools constraints to residential/commercial development along with reforming land use and building codes.
It could explain why Trump is more popular with older voters, as they are likely to have grown up in an era when black ghetto crime really was a pressing issue in a way it isn't so much today.
I very much doubt that increased building in desirable urban areas would do much to reduce property values in those areas: what it may do however is to destroy property values in the "drive 'til you qualify" outer suburbs whose residents face hellish commutes in congested traffic, and where people only live because there was insufficient housing in more convenient locations.
This is a really interesting point. Yeah, I think those homes are "housing crisis houses" and basically would not exist as products in a proper regionally sensible housing market. Something like them would exist, but it would all be closer to the urban core, with a much denser core and inner ring.
Perhaps exclusivity is a key part of the Trump brand?
Notably, in 1961 when huge swathes of New York City were downzoned, the only one of the city's real estate developers to support the downzoning was Fred Trump (Donald's dad). And Donald himself was the only real estate developer to support an (unsuccessful) 1970s plan to downzone much of the Upper East Side.
Interesting. I would have thought as a former builder Trump might be cool with YIMBY in general, but instead he's gone the route you describe. I didn't know there was a possible precedent for that going way back. (And actually, as far as I know, big real estate developers are not huge zoning reform advocates, because they don't mind knowing the thicket of rules that keeps smaller players out).
If drugs were fully legalized it is unlikely that the legal drugs industry would be dominated by the criminal gangs that currently run the illegal drugs trade: the skill set of those gangs is in crime rather than in the production and marketing of a product.
Similarly, people who have the corrupt skill set of knowing how to manipulate government officials are well-suited to succeed in the real estate business in a NIMBY city, but in a YIMBY city other skills would be more important: knowing what customers want, and how to manage the people whose job it is to turn those desires into reality.
A problem with a decline in house prices is that we borrow to buy. Imagine you buy a house for 500k and have a 450k mortgage. If the price of the house falls to 400k you are in trouble. If you sell your house you still owe 50k. That dream job in a different city is now out of reach.
What's so weird about housing, to me, is that basically nobody can actually afford a house, but everyone needs one, so we came up with this extremely bizarre Rube Goldberg-esque system for getting people homes that almost none of them can afford. I don't really know if there's an alternative but it's so weird when you think about it. The idea that financing is like free money - now they're talking 50 year mortgages! - is, I dunno.
That's arguably an argument against home ownership in general, as homes are financial assets that aren't just illiquid, but whose value is strongly tied to the state of the local economy, and are thus likely to lose value at precisely the times when those living there are likely to need money.
What drives me crazy about my local NIMBYs is that they seem to expect that their home prices will keep beating inflation in a massive windfall for themselves, but view the resulting increase in property taxes as an imposition and theft by the government.
I mean that’s just human nature. If something good happened that wasn’t 100% in a person’s full agency they will take credit for their genius. If something bad happens in the same vein, someone evil is out to get them or the problem was caused by someone else, not a trade-off or byproduct of anything they did.
I recommend David Friedman's showing in Hidden Order:
"You have just bought a house. A month later, the price of houses goes down. Are you worse off (your house is worth less) or better off (prices are lower)? Most people reply that you are worse off. The answers seem consistent. It seems obvious that if a rise in the price of housing makes you better off, then a fall must make you worse off. It is obvious, but wrong. The correct answer is that either a rise or a fall in the price of housing makes you better off!"
That doesn’t actually work, at least not with “find on page” with the iPhone. When you make an implausible statement you shouldn’t be lazy about backing it up
The second quote does sort of chime with another NIMBY thread, that the WAY additional supply affects incumbent property owners' value is that it brings in undesirable (low income, or other ethnic group, or other culture/behavior) residents. It "ruins" the neighborhood not architecturally, but demographically.
That said, I second Addison’s belief that fear of loss of pecuniary value is the basis of much opposition to land use and building code reform. And part is just unawareness of the benefits to the city that reform will bring.
A lot of that is imagining "the projects". Lots of places have relatively mixed incomes (still on average pretty high, though) and are perfectly fine in terms of those sorts of concerns. I think the whole crime wave/cities as hellholes thing cast a really long shadow over how people think about all of this.
I agree. I hope I did not come across a endorsing the demographic ruination view! :)
Still, the attitude does exist and YIMBY-ism ought to be inteested in removing (bad) policing and (bad) schools constraints to residential/commercial development along with reforming land use and building codes.
It could explain why Trump is more popular with older voters, as they are likely to have grown up in an era when black ghetto crime really was a pressing issue in a way it isn't so much today.
But not as old as me who grew up not knowing the word gheto and crime was what Jo Friday solved on "Dragnet." :)
I very much doubt that increased building in desirable urban areas would do much to reduce property values in those areas: what it may do however is to destroy property values in the "drive 'til you qualify" outer suburbs whose residents face hellish commutes in congested traffic, and where people only live because there was insufficient housing in more convenient locations.
This is a really interesting point. Yeah, I think those homes are "housing crisis houses" and basically would not exist as products in a proper regionally sensible housing market. Something like them would exist, but it would all be closer to the urban core, with a much denser core and inner ring.
Perhaps exclusivity is a key part of the Trump brand?
Notably, in 1961 when huge swathes of New York City were downzoned, the only one of the city's real estate developers to support the downzoning was Fred Trump (Donald's dad). And Donald himself was the only real estate developer to support an (unsuccessful) 1970s plan to downzone much of the Upper East Side.
Interesting. I would have thought as a former builder Trump might be cool with YIMBY in general, but instead he's gone the route you describe. I didn't know there was a possible precedent for that going way back. (And actually, as far as I know, big real estate developers are not huge zoning reform advocates, because they don't mind knowing the thicket of rules that keeps smaller players out).
If drugs were fully legalized it is unlikely that the legal drugs industry would be dominated by the criminal gangs that currently run the illegal drugs trade: the skill set of those gangs is in crime rather than in the production and marketing of a product.
Similarly, people who have the corrupt skill set of knowing how to manipulate government officials are well-suited to succeed in the real estate business in a NIMBY city, but in a YIMBY city other skills would be more important: knowing what customers want, and how to manage the people whose job it is to turn those desires into reality.
Addison, here is a sub stack I know you would like. Are you already aware of him?
https://www.freerange.city/p/everyone-cant-have-what-they-want
Yes, very much so! He's also a reader!
A problem with a decline in house prices is that we borrow to buy. Imagine you buy a house for 500k and have a 450k mortgage. If the price of the house falls to 400k you are in trouble. If you sell your house you still owe 50k. That dream job in a different city is now out of reach.
What's so weird about housing, to me, is that basically nobody can actually afford a house, but everyone needs one, so we came up with this extremely bizarre Rube Goldberg-esque system for getting people homes that almost none of them can afford. I don't really know if there's an alternative but it's so weird when you think about it. The idea that financing is like free money - now they're talking 50 year mortgages! - is, I dunno.
That's arguably an argument against home ownership in general, as homes are financial assets that aren't just illiquid, but whose value is strongly tied to the state of the local economy, and are thus likely to lose value at precisely the times when those living there are likely to need money.
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2017/05/10/cities-should-not-encourage-home-ownership/
What drives me crazy about my local NIMBYs is that they seem to expect that their home prices will keep beating inflation in a massive windfall for themselves, but view the resulting increase in property taxes as an imposition and theft by the government.
I mean that’s just human nature. If something good happened that wasn’t 100% in a person’s full agency they will take credit for their genius. If something bad happens in the same vein, someone evil is out to get them or the problem was caused by someone else, not a trade-off or byproduct of anything they did.
It’s still bad of them.
I recommend David Friedman's showing in Hidden Order:
"You have just bought a house. A month later, the price of houses goes down. Are you worse off (your house is worth less) or better off (prices are lower)? Most people reply that you are worse off. The answers seem consistent. It seems obvious that if a rise in the price of housing makes you better off, then a fall must make you worse off. It is obvious, but wrong. The correct answer is that either a rise or a fall in the price of housing makes you better off!"
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Hidden%20Order.pdf
That’s a whole book. Whats the reason behind that statement?
Ctrl-F for the text I quoted and you can read the entire discussion.
That doesn’t actually work, at least not with “find on page” with the iPhone. When you make an implausible statement you shouldn’t be lazy about backing it up
Friedman is half wrong. It depends on why the prices of houses fell.