A tortured analogy. The concept of `NIMBY === house as investment` is a very common strawman. Believe it or not, most people care about their homes and communities for their intrinsic value, which is where most NIMBYism comes from.
The problem is when every neighborhood is NIMBY, something has to give or the problem will never be solved. At the end of the day, valuing aesthetics, parking, or quiet is a preference. Having shelter near jobs, schools and public transit is human necessity which is what should be prioritized.
Freezing the SFH neighborhood also doesn't protect the community long term, as NIMBYs believe. When supply gets restricted, prices go up. It prices out the local teachers, service workers, aging family, and even the NIMBY's own children get priced out, until now it's just a neighborhood of million dollar+ SFHs with no young families, no local workforce. It's economic segregation.
Continuing to allow local vetoes and restrictive zoning just pushes us out further and further into unsustainable suburban sprawl, without the transit to match, and boosting emissions.
Not popular in individualistic America, but when we have the housing crisis we do, the needs of the many are going to have to take priority over the needs of the few NIMBYs.
But why does the high density housing have to be where the SFH are? Why does it need to share the parking, facilities, retail, roads, schools, etc. of something that was built and has been maintained and evolved for 50-100 years? Why not build the high density with it's own transit, roads, malls, parks, schools etc?
This is how it's done in the rest of the world, certainly Korea, Japan, and China. I see this in England and France as well. They develop a high density area with new facilities that can grow and evolve for how people want to live there, rather than mowing down houses (in communities of color) or plopping 5-7 story apartments without parking or parks right next to single story SFH, as developers like to do in the US.
I assume it's because it's more profitable for the developers. They don't have to build anything, but the part they can immediately sell, and they ride on the value of the neighborhood created by the people who already live there. I think some infill near commercial districts or malls also faces much less "NIMBY" criticism.
To give a more personal example: I like the location and view of where you live. I like the plants you water, and you keep the house looking clean. I want to just build another large room on top of your house, where me and a bunch of friends will live. We'll just share the stairs, hallways, and front door, and of course our share of the water and electric bill. We probably won't be too loud most nights, and usually when friends come over they won't use your bathroom or take anything from your rooms, or at least we'll ask them not to. Sorry about the construction noise while we do it, and just think you'll get to meet so many new people! Sorry that the part of your house you still own will be worth less than your neighbors when we're done, but that's the price you need to pay for living in a nice place and keeping it up.
The argument that SFH infrastructure repair is subsidized by new building is a much better one. Of course that was true of the tax increases and subsidy of the original town, when the SFH were built as well.
No need to be obnoxious. Just say that your opinion/experience is different. It seems natural to me that the majority of emotions regarding one's home and community are in regards to the idea of home and community, rather than their monetary value, since that's the obvious human perspective. I could be wrong. It's a sentiment, so it's not something easily measured (unless you fall for the trap of over-interpreting statistics, which is common in an engineering-minded folks).
Increasing housing supply does not decrease home values, because high density housing benefits from network effects/economies of agglomeration. NIMBYs don't object because they think their house will be worth less, they object because they believe their quality of life will go down (based on what is important to them).
Higher density brings both good and bad:
upside:
- high paying, specialized jobs
- specialized, high quality services
- stores open late
- better dating (more fish in the sea)
downside:
- more traffic
- more noise
- more pollution
- more anonymity, crime (people in small towns leave their doors unlocked and say hi on the sidewalk)
The people who benefit most from higher density tend to be young professionals, which tend to not currently live in the neighborhood and will move in if density goes up.
Well, increasing housing supply does not always decrease home value, but I also think the home value concern is a secondary distraction.
More saliently, I don't believe you're right that "young professionals" only want to live in dense areas. Sometimes they have to, but that's something we can change.
the problem is that all supply is not equal. in the classic NIMBY case, we’re talking about single family home owner in a neighborhood that has high housing demand, meaning it is largely built out, and they are opposing the introduction of multifamily housing to their neighborhood. in order for new multifamily units to come online, this means that over time existing SFH units are being converted/redeveloped into multifamily homes. this means that at the point where NIMBY pushback starts to matter, the number of SFH in a neighborhood has already largely peaked, and that the supply of that type of home will only ever go down and become more scarce (especially as a percentage of overall units). as more people move into a neighborhood in new multifamily buildings (and bring jobs, businesses, services, and general opportunity) the demand for that neighborhood goes up as well—demand is not fixed, and often goes up with supply, and depending on other macro factors can even outpace it if the agglomeration benefits are working properly. in this case, the NIMBY’s SFH value goes up, because the land value is much higher due to redevelopment potential, and also because that type of home is scarce and highly desirable to wealthy people who want proximity to opportunity in an urban place with the privacy and luxury of a detached SFH.
tl;dr: “while demand remains steady” is doing a lot of heavy lifting that doesn’t really make sense in a real dynamic urban system.
> If all this sounds like wishful thinking, consider the polar case where housing deregulation drives the price of housing to zero. Yes, this wipes out the value of whatever housing you already own. But it also means that you can move to a palace anywhere on Earth for free. Indeed, it means that you could own a palace in every location you desire for free. Lose the value of your home, gain access to every home of your dreams. It’s not just a fair trade. It’s the deal of a lifetime.
Umm, what? If you start with "If this all sounds like wishful thinking", maybe departing into even more unhinged fantasy isn't the next step that helps you? The supposition that _deregulation_ could cause the price to go to zero is crazy; houses are built with labor using materials, on land. In the absence of regulation they shouldn't cost significantly _more_ than their labor+materials+land value, but they shouldn't cost _zero_. If you wanted the world where you don't pay for housing, I think you need a _lot_ of regulation -- after all building millions of Stalin blocks took a lot of intervention.
Throughout the piece, Caplan seems to assume that the only impact of regulation worth discussing is on prices, which seems suspect. But assuming that the only source of prices is regulation is worse.
If you think that NIMBY policies are ultimately harmful, maybe the only thing rougher than talking to NIMBYs is seeing a supposed expert try to argue against them but do it really really badly.
an article about housing that totally ignores the fact that most homes are bought with mortgages. the whole part about a $1M dollar house falling in value being totally fine because other houses fall in value too ignores that when house prices go down mortgage holders can't sell for a price high enough to even buy the now-cheaper price
this is a shitty article with no understanding of reality
A tortured analogy. The concept of `NIMBY === house as investment` is a very common strawman. Believe it or not, most people care about their homes and communities for their intrinsic value, which is where most NIMBYism comes from.
The problem is when every neighborhood is NIMBY, something has to give or the problem will never be solved. At the end of the day, valuing aesthetics, parking, or quiet is a preference. Having shelter near jobs, schools and public transit is human necessity which is what should be prioritized.
Freezing the SFH neighborhood also doesn't protect the community long term, as NIMBYs believe. When supply gets restricted, prices go up. It prices out the local teachers, service workers, aging family, and even the NIMBY's own children get priced out, until now it's just a neighborhood of million dollar+ SFHs with no young families, no local workforce. It's economic segregation.
Continuing to allow local vetoes and restrictive zoning just pushes us out further and further into unsustainable suburban sprawl, without the transit to match, and boosting emissions.
Not popular in individualistic America, but when we have the housing crisis we do, the needs of the many are going to have to take priority over the needs of the few NIMBYs.
But why does the high density housing have to be where the SFH are? Why does it need to share the parking, facilities, retail, roads, schools, etc. of something that was built and has been maintained and evolved for 50-100 years? Why not build the high density with it's own transit, roads, malls, parks, schools etc?
This is how it's done in the rest of the world, certainly Korea, Japan, and China. I see this in England and France as well. They develop a high density area with new facilities that can grow and evolve for how people want to live there, rather than mowing down houses (in communities of color) or plopping 5-7 story apartments without parking or parks right next to single story SFH, as developers like to do in the US.
I assume it's because it's more profitable for the developers. They don't have to build anything, but the part they can immediately sell, and they ride on the value of the neighborhood created by the people who already live there. I think some infill near commercial districts or malls also faces much less "NIMBY" criticism.
To give a more personal example: I like the location and view of where you live. I like the plants you water, and you keep the house looking clean. I want to just build another large room on top of your house, where me and a bunch of friends will live. We'll just share the stairs, hallways, and front door, and of course our share of the water and electric bill. We probably won't be too loud most nights, and usually when friends come over they won't use your bathroom or take anything from your rooms, or at least we'll ask them not to. Sorry about the construction noise while we do it, and just think you'll get to meet so many new people! Sorry that the part of your house you still own will be worth less than your neighbors when we're done, but that's the price you need to pay for living in a nice place and keeping it up.
The argument that SFH infrastructure repair is subsidized by new building is a much better one. Of course that was true of the tax increases and subsidy of the original town, when the SFH were built as well.
I've got to agree there. The whole article had the smell of somebody arguing with themself.
> most people
Citation needed*
No need to be obnoxious. Just say that your opinion/experience is different. It seems natural to me that the majority of emotions regarding one's home and community are in regards to the idea of home and community, rather than their monetary value, since that's the obvious human perspective. I could be wrong. It's a sentiment, so it's not something easily measured (unless you fall for the trap of over-interpreting statistics, which is common in an engineering-minded folks).
Increasing housing supply does not decrease home values, because high density housing benefits from network effects/economies of agglomeration. NIMBYs don't object because they think their house will be worth less, they object because they believe their quality of life will go down (based on what is important to them).
Higher density brings both good and bad:
upside: - high paying, specialized jobs - specialized, high quality services - stores open late - better dating (more fish in the sea)
downside: - more traffic - more noise - more pollution - more anonymity, crime (people in small towns leave their doors unlocked and say hi on the sidewalk)
The people who benefit most from higher density tend to be young professionals, which tend to not currently live in the neighborhood and will move in if density goes up.
Well, increasing housing supply does not always decrease home value, but I also think the home value concern is a secondary distraction.
More saliently, I don't believe you're right that "young professionals" only want to live in dense areas. Sometimes they have to, but that's something we can change.
> Increasing housing supply does not decrease home values
This contradicts every common theory of economics I've heard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
Where are you thinking of when you say that young professionals move when density goes up? That does not track with my observations.
increasing supply while demand remains steady does actually lower prices.
NIMByism can be killed with a land value tax/a property tax that approximates LVT and vice versa.
It was kicked into overdrive in California thanks to prop 13 which capped property taxes.
Can you show me an example where prices went down (in the long term)?
the problem is that all supply is not equal. in the classic NIMBY case, we’re talking about single family home owner in a neighborhood that has high housing demand, meaning it is largely built out, and they are opposing the introduction of multifamily housing to their neighborhood. in order for new multifamily units to come online, this means that over time existing SFH units are being converted/redeveloped into multifamily homes. this means that at the point where NIMBY pushback starts to matter, the number of SFH in a neighborhood has already largely peaked, and that the supply of that type of home will only ever go down and become more scarce (especially as a percentage of overall units). as more people move into a neighborhood in new multifamily buildings (and bring jobs, businesses, services, and general opportunity) the demand for that neighborhood goes up as well—demand is not fixed, and often goes up with supply, and depending on other macro factors can even outpace it if the agglomeration benefits are working properly. in this case, the NIMBY’s SFH value goes up, because the land value is much higher due to redevelopment potential, and also because that type of home is scarce and highly desirable to wealthy people who want proximity to opportunity in an urban place with the privacy and luxury of a detached SFH.
tl;dr: “while demand remains steady” is doing a lot of heavy lifting that doesn’t really make sense in a real dynamic urban system.
> If all this sounds like wishful thinking, consider the polar case where housing deregulation drives the price of housing to zero. Yes, this wipes out the value of whatever housing you already own. But it also means that you can move to a palace anywhere on Earth for free. Indeed, it means that you could own a palace in every location you desire for free. Lose the value of your home, gain access to every home of your dreams. It’s not just a fair trade. It’s the deal of a lifetime.
Umm, what? If you start with "If this all sounds like wishful thinking", maybe departing into even more unhinged fantasy isn't the next step that helps you? The supposition that _deregulation_ could cause the price to go to zero is crazy; houses are built with labor using materials, on land. In the absence of regulation they shouldn't cost significantly _more_ than their labor+materials+land value, but they shouldn't cost _zero_. If you wanted the world where you don't pay for housing, I think you need a _lot_ of regulation -- after all building millions of Stalin blocks took a lot of intervention.
Throughout the piece, Caplan seems to assume that the only impact of regulation worth discussing is on prices, which seems suspect. But assuming that the only source of prices is regulation is worse.
If you think that NIMBY policies are ultimately harmful, maybe the only thing rougher than talking to NIMBYs is seeing a supposed expert try to argue against them but do it really really badly.
I'm a rabid NIMBY, and I know that my house price will go UP when density increases.
I don't care. I want to live in my house, not sell it.
an article about housing that totally ignores the fact that most homes are bought with mortgages. the whole part about a $1M dollar house falling in value being totally fine because other houses fall in value too ignores that when house prices go down mortgage holders can't sell for a price high enough to even buy the now-cheaper price
this is a shitty article with no understanding of reality