> I almost want to agree with you on the displacement point, but the problem is that building on empty land is how we got Phoenix. The ROI on dense buildings isn't great unless you're closer to the center of an already developed city, and then all the problems with displacement and NIMBYs apply. Also, building out to avoid zoning laws isn't great for the local environment.
I think you misunderstood my point. What I meant is that are many empty/available lots ready for development in the city, which could be redeveloped with minimal to no displacement. The problem is that zoning laws (and in many places like SF, community reviews/objections) prevent building there.
For example, in Sunnyvale, a developer bought a empty mall, so they could redevelop it into housing/offices. However, that project took years to get started because of lawsuits and red tape. In New York City, a proposal to replace a parking lot with 300 units of housing in South Seaport was rejected for not fitting the character of the community. Why worry about displacement if projects without displacement take forever to build, or are not allowed?
More generally, most cities have plenty of neighbourhoods that are currently zoned for single family housing. Increasing density there would lead to minimal displacement, because the density is so low that you'd displace on the order of 10s of people per project, which is not a massive amount to deal with.
And if we redefine displacement as being forced to leave against your will (which I think is what left-NIMBYs and I really care about), you could probably get that number down to 0, because I'm sure there are many owner-occupiers who would be willing to sell their property to a developer and move out; they just can't because zoning law forbids increasing density.
> then implement policies to ameliorate that pain while still promoting density
Many efforts to increase density take this into account, and are designed to minimize displacement. For example, the upzoning bill in CA (SB 50) disallowed rebuilding properties that had renters occupying it for the past 5 years, which means that only owner occupied units would be rebuilt (and thus causing no displacement under the definition I used above).
Eventually, we'll run out of empty lots and owner occupied properties in cities to upzone, at which time, we'll have to decide how to make the hard tradeoffs around displacement. But right now, we're not close to that point, so there's no need to muddle the waters with future concerns. Let's just build.
> Just dismissing left-NIMBYs as crypto-Trumpist won't dismiss their otherwise valid concerns
I think left NIMBYs do have valid concerns, and I don't think they're "crypto-Trumpists". My opinion is that they're just "useful idiots" [0] for existing property owners and landlords, because they don't have a good understanding of land economics and how their proposed policies will interact in the real world, which just leads to homeowners and landlords getting richer at the expense of those without property.
[0] - Sorry for the harsh phrasing. I don't mean this in a super derogatory way, I just can't think of another word for this.
I think you misunderstood my point. What I meant is that are many empty/available lots ready for development in the city, which could be redeveloped with minimal to no displacement. The problem is that zoning laws (and in many places like SF, community reviews/objections) prevent building there.
For example, in Sunnyvale, a developer bought a empty mall, so they could redevelop it into housing/offices. However, that project took years to get started because of lawsuits and red tape. In New York City, a proposal to replace a parking lot with 300 units of housing in South Seaport was rejected for not fitting the character of the community. Why worry about displacement if projects without displacement take forever to build, or are not allowed?
More generally, most cities have plenty of neighbourhoods that are currently zoned for single family housing. Increasing density there would lead to minimal displacement, because the density is so low that you'd displace on the order of 10s of people per project, which is not a massive amount to deal with.
And if we redefine displacement as being forced to leave against your will (which I think is what left-NIMBYs and I really care about), you could probably get that number down to 0, because I'm sure there are many owner-occupiers who would be willing to sell their property to a developer and move out; they just can't because zoning law forbids increasing density.
> then implement policies to ameliorate that pain while still promoting density
Many efforts to increase density take this into account, and are designed to minimize displacement. For example, the upzoning bill in CA (SB 50) disallowed rebuilding properties that had renters occupying it for the past 5 years, which means that only owner occupied units would be rebuilt (and thus causing no displacement under the definition I used above).
Eventually, we'll run out of empty lots and owner occupied properties in cities to upzone, at which time, we'll have to decide how to make the hard tradeoffs around displacement. But right now, we're not close to that point, so there's no need to muddle the waters with future concerns. Let's just build.
> Just dismissing left-NIMBYs as crypto-Trumpist won't dismiss their otherwise valid concerns
I think left NIMBYs do have valid concerns, and I don't think they're "crypto-Trumpists". My opinion is that they're just "useful idiots" [0] for existing property owners and landlords, because they don't have a good understanding of land economics and how their proposed policies will interact in the real world, which just leads to homeowners and landlords getting richer at the expense of those without property.
[0] - Sorry for the harsh phrasing. I don't mean this in a super derogatory way, I just can't think of another word for this.