Hacker News Reader

Comment by zdragnar | Hacker News Reader

Isn't this the crux of the issue? Why would current tax payers volunteer to pay more so that more people can come into their neighborhood, devaluing their property by increasing noise, light and chemical pollution?

It's curious to me that so many people complain about gentrification in terms of destroying the nature of an existing community, but then we also have so many complaints about zoning laws that are designed to protect the visible characteristics of communities.

View on HN

> Why would current tax payers volunteer to pay more so that more people can come into their neighborhood, devaluing their property by increasing noise, light and chemical pollution?

Rayiner's point is that current tax payers won't pay more, because new residents result in a higher tax base in the first place.

In California with Prop 13 and widespread rent control, this is especially true.

In California with Prop 13, the current tax payers' property tax rates are well below those of newcomers regardless. So they have no incentive to change things, since their taxes stay at the same low rate either way, whereas in a normal state, I have an incentive to get as much new development in my town as possible to add to the tax base, especially if that new development is stuff that doesn't require lots of expensive infrastructure or tax subsidies.

I don't get the density causes devaluation argument. A plot of land in a high density area is a lot more valuable than in a low density area. So from a purely economic standpoint one should welcome density.

I feel like in California this devaluation argument is not really about economics but rather a proxy for making a case that might not be too politically correct when laid out as it is.

But a high or medium density plot in a low density area lowers the value of low density plots around it. A house on a quiet street with a decent view might be worth X, but the same house becomes worth X/2 if a high-traffic, view-blocking apartment complex is built next door.

But without the level of demand that created the need for that apartment complex, it would have been worth X/4.

Not really. Imagine a wealthy neighborhood in a suburb. The value is the space and quiet.

> A house on a quiet street with a decent view might be worth X, but the same house becomes worth X/2 if a high-traffic, view-blocking apartment complex is built next door.

I disagree. The house might be worth less but the plot of land it is sitting on is worth a lot to a developer who wants to build a similar complex there.

People with houses don't want land, they want houses.

> The house might be worth less but the plot of land it is sitting on is worth a lot to a developer who wants to build a similar complex there.

The problem is that this doesn't work in practice for individual homeowners. It would only work if all the homeowners who own those "plots" required by that developer are willing/able to sell at once, and that happens approximately never.

Moreover, the value of the house isn't just important at the time of sale but also at times such as mortgage refinances. A drop (or lesser gain) in value can have real negative financial consequences well before any sale.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com