I hope the OP realizes that when the shit hits the fan over NIMBYism and the proles are looking for heads to put on spikes, there are many who will cheerfully point you out as an offender and laugh as you are taken off to get your comeuppance. I think I would have enjoyed being around during the French Revolution. 
This sentiment, also well expressed by ascenray and others, resonates with me. Personally, I am very satisfied with my comfortable, convenient, safe existence. But I am sensitive to how my community - whether defined as my city/suburb, my region, my state, my country, my planet - provides for ALL. I’m not so idealistic as to expect that resources be shared equally among all, or that my lifestyle be scaled up to everyone. But I do consider the extent to which my lifestyle ought to be supported by others’ difficulties.
I’m not as sanguine as the OP as to the market’s ability to provide for the less fortunate. IMO, capitalism has frequently operated to exploit the most desperate. It does not seem overly difficult to find people who are willing to cram more and more people into substandard housing, and to tolerate longer and longer commutes for a meagre living. Heck, it beats being broke and homeless, no?
And the poor and middle class are drawn to metro areas because that is where the jobs are. Sure, the cost of living is lower in the middle of Nebraska, but they don’t need as many janitors, housekeepers, or middle managers out there.
Yeah, by all means focus on the quality of life within your own little enclave. But your “community” extends beyond those “gates.” When the market fails to adequately provide for those less fortunate and less able, I think it appropriate for the government to step in. When local government similarly fails, I think it appropriate for a larger unit - the state or feds - to tip the scales. Unlike a privileged small community, a state/nation ought to be concerned with the well-being of ALL of its citizens.
So, basically, the OP was just fine with evolving conditions in the housing market when it was helping his pocketbook substantially.
But now, evolving conditions in the same housing market are utterly unbearable because his pocketbook will be affected negatively.
Change was good when it helped him prosper, but now change is bad because it helps someone else instead of him! Doesn’t matter that it’s help for those less fortunate, it’s not directly benefiting him.
All that matters here is: he’s got his!
As a relatively affluent person, one of the reasons I favor policies that increase prosperity for all, and oppose things like NIMBYism which reduce prosperity for most, is because there is a point at which the masses will roll out the guillotines for the affluent, and in the last few decades we seem to be moving in that direction.
I’ll believe it when I see Sheldon Adelson’s head on a pike.
Bare fact: it isn’t your backyard. The property belongs to other people. You should have no say unless there is some physical aggression on your property.
Nimbyism is another form of protectionism.
I’m seeing two issues here. Then there will come a moderation post that many of you will not like.
First, Bone, your theory that wages go up as costs go up is enormously contraindicated by available data. Nationally, wages - when adjusted for inflation - have been stagnant for decades. Assuming that wages will always go up commensurate with costs is entirely unsupported. To think so is to ignore available data.
Second, in the second paragraph quoted above I see a bit of a contradiction. You maintain a fairly libertarian standpoint on economic issues. Those confronted with economic disparities should move to better cope with their situation. On the other hand, you also maintain than larger cities in California have a ‘strangle hold’ on the legislature and therefore your needs are, presumably, not being met.
But again, under libertarian ethics you are free to move to someplace with greater representation - presumably a larger city - and therefore be better represented. That you choose not to do so is, again presumably, your own choice and complaining about that lack of representation is equivalent - in my thinking - of those complaining about high cost of living in your town.
This is a warning for wishing harm on another poster. It’s explicitly stated in the rules that one shouldn’t wish or imply one would enjoy harm befalling another posters.
Let’s keep this one civil, people.
I readily admit that fear of the violent hungry mob compels my political leanings. Not only do I not want the violent hungry mob to come after me, but I also don’t want to ever be at risk of joining the violent hungry mob.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
It’s also notable that there are several posts in this thread that are expressing comfort with the idea that entire geographic-economic regions can be reserved for the wealthy through the use of restrictive building policies. It’s being implied that just wanting to exist in something better than peon conditions in the entire San Francisco Bay area economic-cultural entity is an exercise of privilege that ordinary people shouldn’t expect to be able to do.
This is one of my favorite blogs and it deals with the CA housing crisis.
While the articles are good, read the comments.
Yes people need housing to live but that is not to say they need housing in a particular place. I don’t think people need housing in Belvedere to live. But the policies of the state apply to Belvedere just as they do to Oakland. That’s the part that I’m opposed to. There are inclusionary housing requirements that make sense for larger cities that don’t make nearly as much sense for those that are not similarly situated.
And the ‘got mine, fuck you’ attitude expressed here, and in post #2 and others, is not accurate, and not nearly so uncommon. Unless a person is at the very bottom of the wealth ladder, we all have more than someone else. That people don’t donate all their assets so that everyone is on equal footing does not translate into ‘got mine, fuck you’. It acknowledges there is a spectrum by which we are comfortable in retaining assets and allowing a system where such retention exists. I’m further to one side of that spectrum than some here, clearly. But the laws in CA are changing, and they are tilting more towards a direction I’m opposed to.
I forgot to comment on this portion earlier. How do you figure the value is substantially made up of public subsidy? A house could be worth $1M - so if I pay $1M how is there a subsidy for that value?
My general response to your post is that I don’t share your view of the world or how the world should order itself. Anytime morality is invoked I mostly disregard it because I doubt we share the same sense of morals.
But as to the specific above comment - I certainly realize there is classism in what I am saying. I have long expressed the idea that I choose where I live in part because it self selects on income. I’m willing to pay more for this - I consider it a feature.
I could live in a place that is 1/2 the cost quite easily. The crime would be higher. The neighborhood wouldn’t be as nice. The issues facing the community would be different - like access to mass transit vs. what type of plants to put in center medians. The reason where I and many others live cost more is because it is more desirable and therefore demand drives the price higher.
I don’t think capitalism’s purpose or result is to provide for the less fortunate. And to be clear, this isn’t necessarily capitalism because there is heavy market intervention. But overall, while our system isn’t charged with providing for the less fortunate, it does a great job in allocating resources and lifting up society as a whole. We in general are more prosperous now than any other time in human history. Certain specific people are certainly not benefiting.
My complaint is not that local governments have failed. My complaint is that local governments are being overridden by the state government. Why should the state force a city like Belvedere to provide for low income housing? It’s tiny, mostly built out, and there are no services to support lower income folks there anyways. A place like Oakland or Cupertino that is dense in population, large in geographic area, rife with support services, plentiful in mass transit, then yeah that makes sense.
It’s not the housing market conditions that are the problem. It’s the state changing the rules over the wishes of the local communities. And yeah, as things change, people, including me will change their evaluation of whether they favor or disfavor something. Not really shocking.
I didn’t state that as clear as possible. There will be a point where wages will go up to meet demand. We may not yet be there. If people in the neighborhood really want a Starbucks, but the store can’t function because it can’t attract workers, or the rents are too high for the business to pencil out, then something will need to change. The store could pay higher wages to attract employees, and subsequently charge more to customers.
Certainly I could move to a place that more aligns with my political beliefs. And it’s not out of the question. That I haven’t means that the tipping point has not yet been met. But moving is not the only option - working within the system to change the rules, or advocating for rule changes are also available options. And as you identify, this is true for those with opposing views. Who will win out? I don’t know. In CA the pendulum is definitely shifting away from my desired outcomes.
You need to give a lot deeper tonight to this proposition.
Protecting your property value in this way is not just “having more than someone else.” It’s using the political system to continue to take wealth from the other people in your community.
Some of these features, such as level of crime, access to transportation, distance from jobs, quality of education wouldn’t necessarily be very different for poorer people if the market were allowed to operate freely. The very fact that your exclusive neighborhood exists makes other neighbor more dangerous.
-
The U.S. has a very low level of upward mobility.
-
The system would actually be able to do this better if folks like you were blocked from manipulating the market.
The state government is acting precisely because the local governments have failed to produce better results.
The economy produces a finite amount of value. The restrictive zoning and covenants that preserve your neighborhood’s qualities are extracting value from the economy that you’re keeping for yourselves. You’re rent-seeking. You’re taking value (money) that should be more evenly distributed throughout the economy.
My house a small crackerjack box on a stamp-sized lot.
But depite being in the city, I am a quarter of a mile from two wonderful parks. In addition to its close proximity to my work location, these parks are why I bought my house. And I imagine the parks are why my house is worth as much as it is.
I would be pissed if my city decided to turn those parks over to a developer. But I cannot deny the fact that much of the value of my home is due to a resource created by the city, paid for by tax-payers (including the poor) who don’t take advantage of it nearly as much as I do.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
It’s also possible for housing supply to go up to meet demand, but the government is stopping it.
There’s a business out there that wants to build and sell a product that people are clamoring for, but the government is refusing to let them. This refusal is entirely to preserve the property values of other people.
In the grand NIMBY tradition, the people in the neighborhood who want a Starbucks don’t want the workers to live in their neighborhood, they want them to live in someone else’s backyard. They want the “something” that “will need to change” to occur somewhere outside their own town.
It turns into a bunch of miniature fiefdoms each trying to avoid being the odd man out. State rules allow for them all to share in the “pain” of increasing housing density while maintaining a semblance of their local rules.
Because local government policy is preventing a completely free housing market in your area, thus protecting (and thus functionally subsidizing) your overall wealth. If your house is in a very desirable place, your land could be worth a lot more (functionally and financially) to the community if zoning were loosened – for example, a big apartment building full of skilled workers and entrepeneurs would generate both more economic activity and more prosperity for the local community than a few detached houses on your and your neighbors’ land. Your local government is functionally preventing the rest of the larger community from receiving that economic benefit, with the benefit going to you and your immediate neighbors. In effect, a subsidy.
And you wouldn’t really be harmed (in a macro economic sense – obviously you’d be pissed) were the zoning loosened – in all likelihood, some developer would make you a good offer for your land (since it’s very desirable) to build a more profitable (and beneficial to the community) denser housing structure; if you still refused, it’s possible you’d be eminent domain’d out (while receiving market value for the land), but you’d have plenty of money to buy an apartment or two in the same location. Or, if you want a detached house, you’d have plenty to move farther out to a place without enough demand to make dense housing feasible. You’d also receive the same larger benefits the overall community received based on increased economic activity due to the more efficient use of land.
Everybody has more than someone else but almost no one got more at the expense of someone else. That is the difference. I live in a bigger house than most of the planet, however that is not because I am keeping the rest of the planet in worse housing. By making affordable housing illegal, you are actively hurting other people for your own benefit. I can not think of a morality system where that is a moral action.
If your home would be worth less under laws that don’t ban affordable housing then the difference between the worth of your home currently and the worth of your home in a free market is a subsidy.
Nice places will always have more demand. There are ways to make places nice that don’t involve immiserating other people. There are plenty of nice places that don’t ban affordable housing.
The way capitalism works is that people and goods are allowed to move to where the value they create is the highest. By banning affordable housing it makes it much harder for people to move to where they can be most productive. NIMBYism interferes with the system that has made this time the most prosperous in human history. I have read estimatesthat housing regulations cut labor productivity by as much as 10%.
The rules do not just affect those cities. By making affordable housing illegal those places make the standard of living lower for every one in the state. By making commute times longer they delay everyone who uses the roads and make more pollution. Land use laws affect everyone, not just those in the community.
If the rents are too high, it will kill some economic activity but mostly what is will do is to raise wages which will not go to the working people but to the landlords. It is a bad thing if more money and resources are being funneled not to the working people or the businesses creating the value but to the landlords who are only in that position because they got there first. That is an inefficient outcome.
I wouldn’t worry, selfish people have had control of California’s housing policy for decades and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. California is chock full of people who loudly proclaim how compassionate they are while voting to hurt the poor and the young to keep property values high.
Ok, then what? I’m actually quite comfortable in my thoughts on this matter. I talk with a lot of homeowners in my neighborhood and my city. It’s a pretty unanimous sentiment that people want to preserve their home values. For the vast vast majority, their home is their largest asset. I would be surprised if someone was going to put up a $200K down payment and then not be concerned about that money.
You haven’t really explained how this taking mechanism works. Nor the previous question about subsidy. I’m not seeing it. You can’t take from someone what was never theirs. Can you walk me through why you think something is being taken?
I’m not clear on what you mean by the economy producing a finite amount of value. But ultimately I have the same question about this as I did above - how is anything being extracted? And if I’m rent seeking - then certainly the state is also rent seeking as well, albeit with different targets. I don’t subscribe to the theory that there is any “should” with regard to wealth distribution.
This is a good example. Would you oppose converting those parks into 6 story low income apartment complexes? And if so, that would make you a NIMBY too, right?
My city also has a lot of greenspace and parks. We could turn that into housing as well, but I’d be opposed because that changes the character of the city. In fact, I would propose more parks to absorb available building spaces in an effort to thwart the state’s goals of more housing everywhere.
Not sure if we are speaking past each other or what, but yeah, capitalism is great for some things, downright lousy for others. I think it a legitimate function of government to provide for the least able/least advantaged. An area capitalism is not great at.
Yeah - and why should I have to pay taxes to support schools, when my kids are grown? And why ought the federal government impose the Voting Rights Act on states? No man - nor city - is an island. I find it tiresome to hear people who have had the most success within our system complaining that they are being inconvenienced by efforts to help out the less fortunate/able.
If a prosperous city wanted to fund/provide alternatives - like the cheap rentals or subsidized busses described above, they could have lobbied the state to have exceptions carved out. It is EXTREMELY common for legislation to provide the wealthy a “buy-out” option. Unfortunately, it is all too common for the wealthy to adopt an attitude that they’ve got theirs, the less fortunate can fend for themselves. And if gov’t wishes to assist the less fortunate, they ought to do so in a manner that is out of sight - and of minimal expense/inconvenience, to the wealthy.
Funny to see where the “allies” are in this thread. I don’t think puddleglum, WillFarnaby, and me (and several other liberals) have ever been on the same side of a contentious issue!
And I bet if I polled many of my neighbors in my town (an affluent part of the DC area), there’d be a bunch of upper-middle-class/wealthy liberal Democrats who agreed with Bone!