The Great American Single-Family Home Problem

[K1052]

I've watched entire neighborhoods disappear in NYC and now I'm seeing lots of land being handed over to developers out where I live.
In my county, the hole thing is a farce.

Who do you think built NYC in the first place?

 

[IronWing]

It's this sort of thinking that's so destructive. Simply having an area change with the times isn't destroying it, it's keeping it vital and new. Lots more people would 'actually make up a community' if the people of that community weren't deliberately trying to prevent other people from coming into it for the purposes of jacking up their own property values. I see no reason why the state should empower people to underutilize valuable land to line their own pockets or enforce their personal vision of what a town should be like.

I hear it all the time in NYC, how people don't want development in their neighborhoods because they think it will cause rents to rise, etc. They don't seem to realize the simple math behind 'more houses = lower housing costs'.

So now you know better than the people who live in a community as to how they should live?

I've lived in fast growing communities and in communities that were built out and land-locked from additional growth. Stable communities were much better. Residential growth sucks up resources that could be better invested in community amenities.

 

[fskimospy]

So now you know better than the people who live in a community as to how they should live?

I've lived in fast growing communities and in communities that were built out and land-locked from additional growth. Stable communities were much better. Residential growth sucks up resources that could be better invested in community amenities.

They are welcome to live however they want, they just don’t deserve to be given veto powers by the state on whether new people can live there or not. Time for the state to reassert control over people who have abused this autonomy.

As for residential growth ‘sucking up resoirces’, residential growth creates new resources. And regardless our population keeps growing, we will ALWAYS need more residential growth. People have to live somewhere and restricting access to our most productive areas is silly.

 

[pmv]

It's this sort of thinking that's so destructive. Simply having an area change with the times isn't destroying it, it's keeping it vital and new. Lots more people would 'actually make up a community' if the people of that community weren't deliberately trying to prevent other people from coming into it for the purposes of jacking up their own property values. I see no reason why the state should empower people to underutilize valuable land to line their own pockets or enforce their personal vision of what a town should be like.

I hear it all the time in NYC, how people don't want development in their neighborhoods because they think it will cause rents to rise, etc. They don't seem to realize the simple math behind 'more houses = lower housing costs'.

Isn't it a little more complicated than that? New developments can indeed cause rents to rise. It can lead to a form of 'economic cleansing', with the locals being forced out of areas their families have lived in for generations, and local services that employ vital but lower-paid workers having trouble finding anyone who can afford to live there to fill those jobs (and then your transport system gets overloaded with people having to commute huge distances). Development can be good for property owners (who can in the last resort, sell up and cash in their capital gains) but really bad for those in rented accommodation. Here, developments increasingly seem to involve the destruction of social housing in favour of far higher-cost owner-occupier or private rentals, aimed at either foreign investors (who leave them empty) or wealthy incomers.

As someone who, simply by virtue of being born a bit earlier, was able to buy property before prices went insane, I find it embarrassing to feel like I'm now part of an overclass, as most of the younger, non-elite, people I know are having to move out because they can't afford rents here.

 

[IronWing]

They are welcome to live however they want, they just don’t deserve to be given veto powers by the state on whether new people can live there or not. Time for the state to reassert control over people who have abused this autonomy.

You seem to be confused about the proper function of the state. I can't afford to live in the Bay area. I never occurred to me that the state should intervene to make it possible for me to live in the Bay area, even trampling on the desires of the people who already live in the Bay area to order to fit me in.

As for residential growth ‘sucking up resoirces’, residential growth creates new resources. And regardless our population keeps growing, we will ALWAYS need more residential growth. People have to live somewhere and restricting access to our most productive areas is silly.

Yeah, that's bullshit.

 

[woolfe9998]

So now you know better than the people who live in a community as to how they should live?

I've lived in fast growing communities and in communities that were built out and land-locked from additional growth. Stable communities were much better. Residential growth sucks up resources that could be better invested in community amenities.

Are these protests about "how people live" or are they really about keeping the value of people's homes propped up by keeping the supply of housing in their communities low? For the most part, this isn't about a way of life. It's about self-interest. It's the same reason why liberal Californians can never get behind repealing or modifying Proposition 13.

 

[pauldun170]

They are welcome to live however they want, they just don’t deserve to be given veto powers by the state on whether new people can live there or not. Time for the state to reassert control over people who have abused this autonomy.

Contradictory statements.

 

[fskimospy]

You seem to be confused about the proper function of the state. I can't afford to live in the Bay area. I never occurred to me that the state should intervene to make it possible for me to live in the Bay area, even trampling on the desires of the people who already live in the Bay area to order to fit me in.

You seem to be confused here. The state isn’t doing it so you can live there, the state is simply moving to use valuable land more effectively. Instead of people commuting 2 hours each way it’s 30 minutes. You can more easily attract businesses and residents which make an economy more powerful and vital.

That way we allocate resources and capital where it’s best used as opposed to paying (literal, har) rents to incumbent property owners.

Yeah, that's bullshit.

So your claim is that more residents means fewer taxes?

 

[IronWing]

Are these protests about "how people live" or are they really about keeping the value of people's homes propped up by keeping the supply of housing in their communities low? For the most part, this isn't about a way of life. It's about self-interest. It's the same reason why liberal Californians can never get behind repealing or modifying Proposition 13.

I disagree. I really don't give a flip about the price of my house. It's paid for and I will likely live in it until I die. I do care that my mountain views are being permanently blocked by vertical development made possible by a state over-ruling of local zoning. Higher density brings noise and traffic. Developers throw up the stucco pinatas but they don't pay for arterial road improvements to handle the new traffic or other infrastructure needed to support the new development. Developers run off with their profits and I get stuck with a diminished quality of life and higher taxes to cover the costs of growth.

 

[IronWing]

So your claim is that more residents means fewer taxes?

Could you explain how you got to this question because it certainly wasn't raised by any point I made.

 

[fskimospy]

Could you explain how you got to this question because it certainly wasn't raised by any point I made.

What did you mean by ‘resources’ then?

 

[ivwshane]

Are these protests about "how people live" or are they really about keeping the value of people's homes propped up by keeping the supply of housing in their communities low? For the most part, this isn't about a way of life. It's about self-interest. It's the same reason why liberal Californians can never get behind repealing or modifying Proposition 13.

I think you are getting hung up on prop 13. The issue you talk about only affects older people who had property at the time of the propositions passing. Its an issue that will fix itself as those people die off.

 

[woolfe9998]

I disagree. I really don't give a flip about the price of my house. It's paid for and I will likely live in it until I die. I do care that my mountain views are being permanently blocked by vertical development made possible by a state over-ruling of local zoning. Higher density brings noise and traffic. Developers throw up the stucco pinatas but they don't pay for arterial road improvements to handle the new traffic or other infrastructure needed to support the new development. Developers run off with their profits and I get stuck with a diminished quality of life and higher taxes to cover the costs of growth.

That's perfectly fine, as a description of your personal priorities. More power to you. Yet it doesn't change my belief in the basic law of human self-interest, not to mention that this is America, where greed is pervasive.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you are getting hung up on prop 13. The issue you talk about only affects older people who had property at the time of the propositions passing. Its an issue that will fix itself as those people die off.

This is not true. Prop 13 is in effect any time a person buys a new home, limiting the assessed value increase going forward for them as well.

It encourages turtling for everyone regardless of when you bought.

 

[IronWing]

As for residential growth ‘sucking up resoirces’, residential growth creates new resources. And regardless our population keeps growing, we will ALWAYS need more residential growth. People have to live somewhere and restricting access to our most productive areas is silly.

Let's try this again. Expanded residential development increases the demand for services. It doesn't create new resources, it extracts resources, often at the expense of folks who were already living in a community prior to the new development. Existing residents face increased taxes to cover the social costs of of the new development. The developers get to socialize costs while privatizing profits.

 

[Moonbeam]

I am glad you don't see this as a partisan issue, and that NIMBYism is as true for conservatives as it is for easily triggered eliticist social justice warrior pumpkin spice latte liberals

That is quite the partisan viewpoint on being non partisan. Do you get off on being farcical?

 

[woolfe9998]

I think you are getting hung up on prop 13. The issue you talk about only affects older people who had property at the time of the propositions passing. Its an issue that will fix itself as those people die off.

Did you miss the part where there is no reassessment of the property when parents leave their property to their kids? It's called an "inter-family transfer" and it doesn't trigger a reassessment.

Also, are you aware of how Prop 13 affects commercial property? If a business, say a retail shop, is going under or the owner is retiring, all they have to do is sell the business entity which owns the property to the new owner, instead of selling the property itself. Hence, there is no change of ownership and no reassessment.

Prop 13 needs serious modification.

 

[pmv]

Who do you think built NYC in the first place?

Construction workers?

 

[K1052]

Construction workers?

Who were employed by?

 

[JSt0rm]

I was in Aruba last week and while we were grilling we chit chatted with some other people grilling. I live in the DMV area about 8 miles north of DC. When I talked to this other guy and we started asking where we're each from, he told me he was from Kentucky. The very first thing out of his mouth after I told him I was from the DMV area was "aren't housing prices ridiculous there?" The second thing out of his mouth was asking about how bad traffic is in the area. And yes he's right about both of those.

The thing is though, there's just so much more money to be made (in my field at least) where I live.

Sure my house may be double the price of his house, and probably 1/3 or more smaller, but my salary is pretty high and due to that it gives me a lot of extra fun money to play around with and take these vacations frequently due to the extra income.

If my salary is double what I'd make in Kentucky, but so is what my house payment would be in Kentucky, I still have the potential to come out with a lot more disposable income than I would living in a place with lower cost of living and lower salaries anyways.

Hypothetical scenarios below:

Kentucky - $1000/mo mortgage - $4000/mo takehome - $3000 extra income after paying mortgage
Maryland - $2000/mo mortgage - $8000/mo takehome - $6000 extra income after paying mortgage

Even if takehome in MD was only $6000/mo, that is still an extra $1000 a month after paying mortgage. So me personally, I'd take higher cost of living area if it was a place I wanted to live, over a low cost of living place, if it meant in the end I'd still have a lot more money after paying bills. And in that above scenario, that means 401k is also much larger as well so retirement would be larger in high cost of living area too.

plus you can sell and move out to a lower cost of living area when you retire.

 

[pmv]

Who were employed by?

Who cares? The workers did the work. That's what the word 'worker' means.

 

[fskimospy]

Let's try this again. Expanded residential development increases the demand for services. It doesn't create new resources, it extracts resources, often at the expense of folks who were already living in a community prior to the new development. Existing residents face increased taxes to cover the social costs of of the new development. The developers get to socialize costs while privatizing profits.

This is simply factually untrue. By your logic NYC should be an incredible tax sink instead of the most economically powerful region in the country that subsidizes suburban and rural areas where infrastructure is inefficient to build.

New development often requires new infrastructure but it provides its own tax resources every year from residents and is generally a long term win for the area. Denser development also enables effective use of more efficient transit, power, etc. infrastructure.

You do realize it’s low density areas like (presumably) yours that generally inflict costs on more efficient areas, not the other way around, right? Your roads carry 100 cars a day while NYC roads carry 100,000, yet they aren’t 1000 times more costly to build.

 

[K1052]

Who cares? The workers did the work. That's what the word 'worker' means.

Building in this context is more than the dudes doing the masonry work.

Walk around any urban neighborhood. Basically that you see was built out by developers looking to make money. This isn't an inherently evil profession. Like all businesses they are looking to satisfy demand and make money doing it. What that exactly looks like is determined by the laws, technology, and consumer demand of the era. Post WWII US suburbia also is entirely a product of developers.

 

[ivwshane]

This is not true. Prop 13 is in effect any time a person buys a new home, limiting the assessed value increase going forward for them as well.

It encourages turtling for everyone regardless of when you bought.

Incorrect. Prop 13 froze the value of peoples houses at the time of passage, all future home owners would see their property taxes increase/decrease depending on the assessed value.

Its why my neighbors house which is the same as mine hasn't had their assessed value change more than $10k for the last 17 years (which is the amount of data available to apps like zillow) and yet my property's assessed value has fluctuated up and down by almost $200k in those same 17 years. Its because they've owned their house since prop 13 passed.

 

[Starbuck1975]

That is quite the partisan viewpoint on being non partisan. Do you get off on being farcical?

Read the end of post 14 and it will make more sense why I was being farcical.