And flint is not the only city like this with shrinking population yet rising housing values. A quick google shows me also Rockford, IL, Decatur, IL. Youngstown OH. Saginaw, MI. Binghamton, NY with no apparent end to the list
While it's true that zoning worsens the problem, cities with essentially no zoning rules also have have rising housing prices.
The crux of this universal problem is that housing has been turned into an international investment class rather than being housing.
That and that retirement support is so dismal, individuals must have large returns on home purchase to avoid life threatening poverty in old age.
So of course change zoning rules, it's bound to help some but it's not the core problem.
[1] for the curious, start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shrinking_cities_in_th...
This is not the city to use in any argument, unless it involves EPA super sites.
those cities may have laxer zoning/land-use laws than other US cities but they're still very strict compared to cities outside US.
I can think of many pro-market initiatives that would alleviate society’s ailments. But allowing more, denser housing to be built is one of the easiest, least burdensome solutions placed on the taxpayer. The damage caused by more housing is to delicate sensibilities as a homeowner’s “view” is blocked by new towers and the “character” of a neighborhood is ruined by lower income newcomers.
Your argument - that increased population causes the support infrastructure to buckle - is 100% false.
The eventual solution was the building of a huge new high school complex known as Ed Park, eventually renamed Independence High School, on much cheaper land well to the south.
But that's "wide open spaces" kinda land.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/03/all-humanity-...
I hear this argument many times but what I don't hear is how the city will get the additional revenue needed to service this new density? An increase in the population requires more fire, police, swerer, water, roads, public transportation and schools. But a city can tax companies and collect sales tax.
And what pays for it is … the property tax.
Most new stuff, at least in New Hampshire and Mass, is just SO UGLY inside and out. The people complaining about new construction do have legitimate grievances here.
(I say all this as a huge walkable towns, new urbanist-ish advocate)
Placing some restrictions to ensure you don’t make cookie-cutter concrete boxes is not so bad. Banning new, denser construction entirely is the true problem.
In particular, apartments have much lower sound proofing standards.
I guess the local politicians don’t realize that poor people (and millennial engineers) also need to sleep.
Though I did not have a hand in this, as I don’t live there anymore, my old neighborhood successfully blocked the city from allowing developers to build a building that would allocate less than 100sqft of total (not living!) space per the elder person being cared at the facility. Bunk beds and all. Essentially a distopian hellhole.
Now, 3 story townhomes with reasonable sqft going up. Smaller spacing than I would personally want, but it’s A) housing and B) livable for a family, so it’s a win in my book.
If only Santa Monica would average 3 stories...
When we wait too long, the market demands cheaper housing ASAP - style goes out the window.
I’m also happy to pay the current market value of the (nicer) house I grew up in to my landlord every four years, all for that mountain view that’s occluded by the neighbors’ single story houses anyway.
Ditto for not having workable public transit, no decent restaurants walkable from the house, etc, etc.
/s
However, it's still selfish to restrict development in high-demand areas on the grounds of losing a view. The view is of or over other people's property, and density restrictions hurt the general public by forcing people to relocate or make financial sacrifices to stay in the area.
You'll see political change as specific demographic cohorts enter the political process and others die out. I feel like we are at the start of that shift as boomer politicians are starting to die and millenial/gen x politicians are starting to come to prominence. Since millennials are an echo of the boomers population wise, they will probably dominate over the gen x generation.
When the next demographic buys their first homes, they, too, are likely to want to live in the neighborhood into which they bought, and not into one with an increasing population density.
For a quick comparison, look at seattle vs sf. Seattle had similar issues and dealt with it in a far better manner, not wanting to become another SF. They still have issues, true, but the price increase hasn't been as dramatic, and highrises were allowed to be built.
You can't have your cake and eat it too: either prices represent the value people give to things (a commitment held by free-marketeers) or they're "artificial". And there's no reason to believe that freedom automatically creates happy outcomes, especially because inertia can leave inequities (e.g. redlining still affecting both familial wealth and [/therefore] segregation) or undesirable externalities (e.g. formerly livable land polluted by industry dumping, or disused commercial/industrial buildings that are now rotting hulks) still in place for loooong after the capital that created the problem has left the community.