"The real problem is people that prevent additional housing from being built."
If you go deeper, it's about personal preferences and distribution of jobs. There are plenty of areas that allow houses to be built and have affordable houses. Many of those places may have limited job choices, although remote is becoming bigger. If companies didn't cluster as much, then overpopulation or constrained resources in specific areas wouldn't be as much of problem. But there's also the side of people wanting single family homes instead of apartments - both existing owners and many prospective buyers.
It seems some companies and individuals are realizing this and moving to areas with lower density and lower cost of living (or cost of business).
Sure, you could take the other way of removing many zoning regulations, but the regulations are the product of democracy. Nothing wrong with people in a community wanting to set standards for their area.
It's pretty obvious that there are large returns to density. This has been repeatedly studied.
This is why people move to cities and why employers move to cities.
As more people are brought into the world, those cities will get larger. Effectively prohibiting construction is a ridiculously stupid policy
> Nothing wrong with people in a community wanting to set standards for their area.
There certainly can be. I don't buy this perspective of extreme local control - it obviously can't apply for everything, and housing is one of the things it shouldn't apply to.
It's also not just about "personal preference" - building more housing in these areas would be societally welfare improving. That is more than just my preference.
"Effectively prohibiting construction is a ridiculously stupid policy"
But one has to convince the residents or other voting population of that.
"it obviously can't apply for everything, and housing is one of the things it shouldn't apply to."
I generally agree that government should take the smallest role possible. It seems that this topic has a long and expansive precedent - code requirements for how structures are built and where they can be, zoning for where structures can be built and their uses, property taxes (and seizure of non-paying), ordinances restricting what people can do on their own property, property state restrictions (disrepair ordinances), etc.
We could do away with basically all these restrictions. The question is where we draw that line, what we consider problem activity, and how we come to those determinations.
"It's also not just about "personal preference" - building more housing in these areas would be societally welfare improving."
What the preference was aimed at is that many people want single homes, garages, yards, etc. If they can't get them, they will end up moving to where they can. If they have them, they (and the other neighbors) will advocate to keep the neighborhood that way.
You can call something societally beneficial, but others might not see it the same way. It seems the boom-bust housing cycle and migrations between various cities or other areas can also provide societal benefit, and may even be self-correcting as we see people and companies select away from the highest COL areas to more attractive areas. This could lead to sufficient remaining voter base to make the building more permissible or eliminate the need by reduction in demand.
> But one has to convince the residents or other voting population of that.
There's plenty of other things that that has obviously not been true for, I don't see why we should default to this extreme localism you seem to be advocating.
We didn't let local voters decide to continue imposing testing requirements to vote, we didn't let them allow businesses to continue to determine patrons based on race, we don't allow local jurisdictions to unilaterally confiscate land/property from private owners.
Given that this is a large problem, I don't see why non-local governmental action should be given an effective veto power by residents who don't want to see anyone new in their neighborhood. The burden is on you to justify that, given extensive evidence on how this would be welfare & growth enhancing.
> What the preference was aimed at is that many people want single homes, garages, yards, etc. If they can't get them, they will end up moving to where they can. If they have them, they (and the other neighbors) will advocate to keep the neighborhood that way.
Yes, plenty of people advocate for things that are in their self-interest yet bad for society. Your point?
> You can call something societally beneficial, but others might not see it the same way.
Sure. By beneficial, I mean net welfare enhancing for society. It's obviously not beneficial if your criteria is "increasing the price of my home by constricting supply."
"Given that this is a large problem, I don't see why non-local governmental action should be given an effective veto power by residents who don't want to see anyone new in their neighborhood."
So my question still stands and just moves up to the next level. Now you have to convince the majority of the state or country to support that sort of law. At the federal level, the 10th ammendment might even prevent this type of law.
The second half of that sentence is pretty inflammatory. There are many people who don't want new houses constructed and changing the density of their neighborhood but would welcome someone new if they're moving into an existing house.
"Yes, plenty of people advocate for things that are in their self-interest yet bad for society. Your point?"
My point is that people want single homes with these amenities and in that sort of setting. Why shouldn't they have that? You're implying that this is bad for society, yet I see no support for this. I see nothing that prevents the free market from addressing or self correcting housing issues. Vaguely claiming that your position is beneficial and others are not is unproven. Even if it would be beneficial, you still have to convince the voters to support it.
"Sure. By beneficial, I mean net welfare enhancing for society. It's obviously not beneficial if your criteria is "increasing the price of my home by constricting supply.""
We would have to prove the net benefit part. Nobody said it was about home values. Some people support many restrictions for reasons other than property value, like quality of life, infrastructure issues, etc.
"But there's also the side of people wanting single family homes instead of apartment'
Most people who can't afford a home would not reject a decent apartment, they just want somewhere to live.
Also those are not the only two choices, there are duplex and triplex homes, illegal in most of us, and other variations
"Nothing wrong with people in a community wanting to set standards for their area."
So in this "democracy" people who don't own a house have no voice and no right? Why does this remind me of some other mechanism for opressing undesirables?
"So in this "democracy" people who don't own a house have no voice and no right?"
You don't have to own a house to vote. This isn't the 18th century where only land owners vote. If you have a sufficient number of renters, they can outweigh the owners.
For example, a municipality in CA decided to raise taxes on land lords of rentals. Land lords didn't want this, the renters did (probably misguided since the cost gets passed on to them).
"Why does this remind me of some other mechanism for opressing undesirables?"
You could tell us instead of being rhetorical. Otherwise the obvious answer is that you are missing details in your comparison and wrongly concluding that it's about oppression.
Remote does resolve some of the advantages to clustering. Other factors connecting transaction costs and physical distance may prove harder to overcome, but here is hoping.
I don’t know what sort or homes Zillow buys, but I know locally a lot of flippers purchase homes that most banks wouldn’t lend to a regular consumer. Then they fix them up. These are hoarder homes, abandoned buildings, condemned housing, etc. In so far as they’re making homes more accessible to folks without contracting skills I don’t see a problem.
