Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xB31B1B | Hacker News Reader

The real problem, and the article alludes to this, isn't just that the boomers aren't moving, it's that they aren't moving AND they're preventing more and denser housing from being constructed in their neighborhoods. Many of these boomers live in single family zoned neighborhoods and fight tooth and nail against allowing any multi family developement around them (i.e. Duplexes or 4 plexes). This chokes of supply, raises land prices, and makes living unaffordable for younger folks who do not yet own.

View on HN

My neighborhood is like that, and they have a hilariously contradictory slogan.

"Keep Seattle Livable", by apparently opposing higher building zoning laws so that only short single family homes can be built. They have it in their head somehow that the current housing stock is affordable, despite the fact that a small 3br single family here sells for like a million, and rent is like >$2k/month.

Keep Seattle Livable for people who already own their homes in the area, so other people can't move in.

This hits the nail right on the head! Current home owners are very clearly incentivized to restrict housing supply. Zoning reforms should be at the forefront of discussions on how to address the current housing crisis.

What's stranger still is when affordable housing advocates align with the boomers against building new construction because its not all affordable. Basically its much easier to say no to anything than yes to a compromise.

I've never seen any housing advocate be opposed to new housing just because it would be unaffordable. Always there is another reason. Often in such a scenario the new housing proposal relied on displacing existing low income housing.

Affordable housing advocates would be happy to see low density mansions upzoned into relatively cheaper multi family housing but those are never the proposals we see. Instead again and again we see proposals to tear down affordable multi family apartments for working class people in order to build larger, more expensive multi family apartments for the middle class. I am unsurprised to see housing activists opposed to these sort of upzonings even if they would result in a net increase of housing.

My armchair opinion on this position is that it tends to serve developers and employers more than the 'younger folks' you mention. Employers in particular need to start increasing wages, opening satellite offices, and encouraging remote work whenever possible.

World leading professional economists tend to disagree with you [0], and our government sponsored research groups tasked with addressing livability also disagree with you [1] but you are free to keep your opinion.

[0] http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/chang-tai.hsieh/research/gro...

[1] http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/hou...

Thanks for these references -- I look forward to reading them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com