I am a NIMBY, and there is no housing crisis in CA

[Acsenray]

If all this is to you is a game scenario, then it should be fine to out game you by having the state government force local governments to change their policies. The local zoning game is no more legit than the state government game.

But sure, let’s take you at your word that when it comes down to it all that matters to you is your short-term personal benefit. Well that’s why we hope that the political system has a way to override your short-term personal interest by asserting larger goals.

Ultimately the society and the economy don’t benefit from designating certain geographical locations as “affluent” locations for all time. Economic efficiency and a broader notion of the public good has more pressing concerns.

And historical land use patterns—before the advent of zoning—show that mixed use and mixed-wealth settlement patterns produce the highest levels of public welfare. Everyone benefits when people of all economic levels can live close to high energy economic centers. Very few people benefit from the creation of exclusive neighborhoods.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bone

I don’t believe I’ve asserted that the free market will work. I fully acknowledge that restrictive zoning rules are not an example of the free market at work. It is a market that is heavily impacted and influenced by local and state regulation. Nothing is going to change that aspect, so to the extent it exists, I’d want to use it to push policies I find favorable. This is a ‘don’t hate the player, hate the game’ scenario.
It’s unfortunate for them, certainly. It’s a concern also. But not enough to make me change my evaluation or desired outcome.

Then what’s the point of discussing it? You’re for what’s best for your property values… you wouldn’t have any reason to expect others to support you in this, unless they lived in your neighborhood, right? And you’d understand if plenty of people opposed you, because your policy is hurting them, right?

[Bone]

@Acsenray

If all this is to you is a game scenario, then it should be fine to out game you by having the state government force local governments to change their policies. The local zoning game is no more legit than the state government game.

I’m not saying state action is illegitimate. It’s certainly within the state’s powers to do what they are doing. I’m opposed to it. I hope to convince enough like minded people to also oppose it in sufficient numbers to defeat various housing initiatives pushed by the state. For example, last year State Senator from SF, Scott Wiener pushed SB 827. This bill would have allowed the construction of apartment buildings up to five stories tall near every high frequency mass transit stop in the state. It was killed.

The NIMBY side had some surprising allies, among them the Sierra Club and advocates for “Public Housing in My Backyard,” or PHIMBYs, who argued that the law would enrich developers and exacerbate gentrification in low-income minority neighborhoods.

This bill has been reintroduced with some modifications in this term, now SB 50. This bill would limit zoning restrictions near transit and certain job dense areas. But if I were pulling the strings, my approach would be to eliminate transit to avoid triggering this law. This combined with the other recent law that was executed giving BART zoning authority over property it owns in various cities so that they could build housing - it totally deincentivizes any local government from allowing transit in their city. Why would I allow a bus stop or a mass transit nearby if I know that by doing so I cede local control over zoning?

[Acsenray]

If your sole argument rests on the principle “What’s benefits me and the relatively few affluent people like me,” then I hope we have a democratic system healthy enough to defeat that principle in favor of what’s better for everyone.

The fact that you’re willing to scuttle pretty much any and all environmental and quality of life measured such as public transportation just reveals the bare self-interest and ruthlessness at the heart of your position.

[Bone]

@Acsenray

If your sole argument rests on the principle “What’s benefits me and the relatively few affluent people like me,” then I hope we have a democratic system healthy enough to defeat that principle in favor of what’s better for everyone.

The fact that you’re willing to scuttle pretty much any and all environmental and quality of life measured such as public transportation just reveals the bare self-interest and ruthlessness at the heart of your position.

I suppose. If you look at middle class and upper middle class bedroom communities where most of the city is residential single family zoning, and the homes are the most valuable thing the family owns, do you fault those people from banding together to try to take steps to protect their home values? I wouldn’t characterize it as ruthless - pragmatic mostly. Unless you believe that people have a right to live in a certain place, regardless if they can afford it. Do you?

[iiandyiiii]

@Bone

I suppose. If you look at middle class and upper middle class bedroom communities where most of the city is residential single family zoning, and the homes are the most valuable thing the family owns, do you fault those people from banding together to try to take steps to protect their home values? I wouldn’t characterize it as ruthless - pragmatic mostly. Unless you believe that people have a right to live in a certain place, regardless if they can afford it. Do you?

In a sense it’s pragmatic, but it’s also destructive, and it doesn’t need to be allowed. Through some quirks of the system, some homeowners have outsize influence over policy that provides them with significant short and medium term benefit with the cost of long-term overall harm to the larger community. That’s not something that we need to allow in the system. Without this ability there would be greater prosperity for all.

[Acsenray]

The question “do people have a right to live somewhere even if they can’t afford it “ is a red herring. It’s an artificial question that makes everything turn on a question of right and rests on an question of “afford” that conveniently ignores the subsidy underlying the value of property.

What’s really at issue is how do you construct housing and land use policy such that the public benefit is maximized along a variety of factors, including what facilities efficient operation of economy, jobs, employment, energy use, and the mental and physical health of the people.

It’s not that we want to give someone an enforceable right to live somewhere but rather we want to build a community such that we all can live in the most healthy conditions.

[Acsenray]

Constructing a zoning policy that forces people to live farther and farther from work creates enormous costs to society, including loss of productivity, increasing costs of wages, increasing health costs, damage to the environment, and others.

The affluent neighborhoods benefitting from exclsioibuilding policy get to push off the costs of these negative externalities onto everyone else.

How about in exchange for protecting your property values in this way, the government taxes you your share of these externalities?

[Acsenray]

And of course this is the same constituency that foisted on California the burden of the disastrous Prop 13.

[DrDeth]

@Acsenray

And of course this is the same constituency that foisted on California the burden of the disastrous Prop 13.

It wasnt a disaster at all, in fact it was really needed and still is. Unless you like people losing their homes due to RE price fluctuations.

[Tamerlane]

@Bone

I wouldn’t characterize it as ruthless - pragmatic mostly.

The problem is that I don’t see this as all that pragmatic. I kinda see it more as kicking yourself in your own teeth. The issue( for me )is that the quality of life for your community, if not you specifically, is going to decline because all the service workers that help make it a comfortable and happy place to live will either be forced out or degraded in quality. It’s not even about home ownership, it is about simple rental costs. Right now San Jose Unified purportedly replaces 1 in 7 teachers every year, most because they do just what you suggest - move somewhere cheaper. That high turnover has an inevitable cost to educational stability and quality. Two-four hour commutes also will inevitably have an impact on quality of instruction as well as burn out and recruitment.

This isn’t good for San Jose and the affluent tech workers that live there and that overwhelmingly send their kids to public( average salary 70k/yr )or even private schools. Slightly higher property values are not worth it and I speak as someone who benefited from those rapidly rising home prices.

If you want to say tiny enclaves like Belvedere should be exempted from low income housing regulations based on size, I’d say while it is arguable, sure. That’s within the realm of compromise. But compromises have to go both ways and NIMBYs can’t always get what they want.

[Kimstu]

@Acsenray

Constructing a zoning policy that forces people to live farther and farther from work creates enormous costs to society, including loss of productivity, increasing costs of wages, increasing health costs, damage to the environment, and others.

Yup. If the lower-middle-class workers serving Bone’s community actually took his advice to work and live somewhere more affordable, and he and his colleagues had to start cleaning their own offices and workplace bathrooms, he would start noticing the downsides of his NIMBY position.

But generally there are enough working-class people with precarious finances and strong work ethic to shoulder the burden of overcrowded housing and/or marathon commutes to comparatively low-income jobs because they need the paycheck and/or can’t afford the upfront sums needed to relocate. The costs to society from zoning policies that cater to elite exclusivity are mostly offloaded, as usual, onto those members of society least able to afford them.

[Bone]

@Acsenray

Constructing a zoning policy that forces people to live farther and farther from work creates enormous costs to society, including loss of productivity, increasing costs of wages, increasing health costs, damage to the environment, and others.

The affluent neighborhoods benefitting from exclsioibuilding policy get to push off the costs of these negative externalities onto everyone else.

How about in exchange for protecting your property values in this way, the government taxes you your share of these externalities?

I’m not sure how you’d calculate that share, but I already pay quite a bit in taxes.

But let’s be clear, there is nothing forcing people to live further away, at least in the standard meaning of the word. People are choosing to do so because they view it as their best option. These folks may gripe about it, may lobby their elected representatives about it, but in no way are they being forced to commute great distances.

[Bone]

@Tamerlane

The problem is that I don’t see this as all that pragmatic. I kinda see it more as kicking yourself in your own teeth. The issue( for me )is that the quality of life for your community, if not you specifically, is going to decline because all the service workers that help make it a comfortable and happy place to live will either be forced out or degraded in quality. It’s not even about home ownership, it is about simple rental costs. Right now San Jose Unified purportedly replaces 1 in 7 teachers every year, most because they do just what you suggest - move somewhere cheaper. That high turnover has an inevitable cost to educational stability and quality. Two-four hour commutes also will inevitably have an impact on quality of instruction as well as burn out and recruitment.

You seem to be suggesting that as costs go up that wages won’t also go up. If there is a demand for a service industry, the price will eventually rise to make it viable to meet it.

If residents in San Jose want more continuity of teachers, they can band together to fund it. In my area, the public elementary school has two full time positions funded entirely by donations because the parents want it. One of those positions is early reading assistance for those younger kids having a harder time.

But the issues San Jose faces as a large, spread out city are very different than those of nearby Piedmont or Danville. The approach and potential solutions for San Jose will probably not be as good a fit for other places. And that’s the rub with state mandates. They seize local control and apply the one size fits all model.

And the cities collectively do not like it. The League of CA Cities, an advocacy group with most cities as their members, routinely opposes these mandate efforts by the state. But due to the strangle hold the larger cities have on the state legislature it doesn’t have a significant impact.

[Voyager]

@Bone

I’m not sure how you’d calculate that share, but I already pay quite a bit in taxes.

I do also, but not as much as my neighbor in a less expensive house who moved in after me, and a lot more than his neighbor who has been here forever and pays a bit more than $1500 a year in property taxes on a house easily worth $1 million.

But let’s be clear, there is nothing forcing people to live further away, at least in the standard meaning of the word. People are choosing to do so because they view it as their best option. These folks may gripe about it, may lobby their elected representatives about it, but in no way are they being forced to commute great distances.

Sure. They can sleep in their cars, or have four people share two rooms.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

As a resident, I have a desire to maintain and increase my property value. Increasing supply, all other things being equal, goes against that goal. I think local cities should be able to take steps to restrict development consistent with their neighborhoods and to maintain the character and value for the residents. I chose where I live for a number of factors. It’s safe, quiet, close to work, good schools, etc. Those things also make it very expensive. My neighborhood tends to self select on income. The proposals by the Governor seek to increase housing supply, increase density, remove barriers to building, and therefore lower my property value.

CA is a desirable place to live. As a result, the demand is high. It is expensive to build here because of the high cost of labor, environmental regulation, and supply restrictions both due to limited space and local control of land use policies. But no one has a right to live where they want to, irrespective of the cost. If people can’t afford to live in the place they want, it’s not a crisis, it’s reality. I would love to live on a cliff side over looking the ocean with 100 acres and no one around, but that’s quite pricey so I can’t. This isn’t a housing crisis, this is a ‘people want things they can’t afford’ reality. If people can’t afford to live here, I suggest they don’t.

Missing from this analysis is that people tend to need housing to live. That fairly universal need is being put on the back burner so that your safe investment (one that already tells us you’re quote wealthy) can infinitely accrue in value.

That’s… mildly sociopathic, to put it bluntly. “Got mine, fuck you” rarely gets stated quite so openly. :mad:

[MrDibble]

The correct counter to “I don’t owe you an affordable home, prole!” is “we don’t owe you a high property value, neither!”.

[Lord_Feldon]

@Acsenray

For this and other reasons, we need to eliminate “local” counties, cities, and towns and do this planning on a metropolitan-wide basis, to reflect the true needs and costs to the economy and community as a whole. The very fact that these tiny jurisdictions exist in the first place is to enable affluent whites, in particular, to benefit from the economy while escaping the consequences of their own lifestyles. It makes no sense from the perspective of the larger economy or society to put so much power in the hands of so few.

I’m very pessimistic about the chances of this ever coming close to happening, but I agree 100%.

In the meantime, while I support legislative fixes from the states, I also think there should be a real attempt to poke holes in Euclid v. Ambler. I’m not saying zoning should go away completely but the Constitution says that communities do not get to establish migration control systems, regardless of local opinion, and IMO it’s pretty clear that zoning is being used to establish such through the back door.

[BigT]

@Bone

As a resident, I have a desire to maintain and increase my property value.

That right there is the problem. Why should you be allowed to make more money at the cost of other people? Why should your own selfish desires be more important than that of the community? It’s still “I have mine. Screw you.”

But is that the way we want society to be? Do we want everyone only looking out for themselves? It hasn’t seemed to work out very well. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and society rots because there are more poor than rich. We get the poor people voting for people like Trump, because he promises to “make America Great,” giving them their wealth back.

This sort of thing is why keep trying to argue to keep money out of morality. It doesn’t help. Capitalism is not based on a moral system. In the exchange of goods, the right thing to do is to try and give up the least to get the most–to undervalue and cheat others. It’s not about making sure things are fair.

And fairness is one of those things that we as human being expect, and will eventually even go to war over. What was “taxation without representation” but “It is unfair that we get taxed without representation”? It’s how humans work.

I also hope you notice the classism in what you are saying. You want your place to be “safe.” But you don’t make it safe by living out in a place where the prices are low and there are few people. You make it safe by making sure only your class of people is around.

Your solution is not “Give the poor people more so they don’t have to steal.” It’s “keep them away from me.” That doesn’t fix anything. It just leaves you promoting what people think is unfair.

All the while you are interested in making yourself more money, rather than being interested in people. And I will continue to argue that this is our ultimate moral problem and what causes harm to our country. There’s a reason why people are happier but wages lower in some other countries that have the “people first” idea.

To me, “property values” is the same kind if not the same degree as what’s wrong with Donald Trump. He is the ultimate “I just make money and don’t care about what happens to others.”

Ayn Rand isn’t right. Rational self-interest does not create a moral society. Communism may not work, but only because of greedy people who subvert it. A place where everyone has what they need is still the ideal, not some people having more than they need and others having less, and thus being “less safe” to be around. Trump also shows how not following the law gets you ahead in society.

Oh, and if you think I’ve just said something but not shown my logic, tell me specifically, rather than using it as a swipe against me, please. It’s easy when you believe something to accidentally leave out one of the logical steps to get there.

And please don’t accuse me of saying something I didn’t. I may be liberal and leftist, but that doesn’t mean I’m stupid.

[Cheesesteak]

@Acsenray

Another way to look at this is that the OP’s property value is substantially made up of a public subsidy, in the form of zoning restrictions. But someone is paying for this subsidy, and that’s everyone who is affected by skyrocketing housing costs, and bearing the brunt of the resulting negative externalities.

This bears repeating because it cuts right to the heart of the matter. Bone benefits from his local government tampering with the real estate market, and is mad that the State wants to reduce their influence.

The fact that he doesn’t care that others suffer to help inflate his property values is unsurprising from a NIMBY.