Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimt1234 | Hacker News Reader

I'm a NIMBY, unfortunately. Not because I'm anti-progress or whatever, but because so much of my financial life is tied to my house, and whether I like it or not, there's a lot that can adversely affect its value. So, if building a new apartment complex nearby is gonna reduce my property value by 5%, taking around $50K out of my pocket, of course I'm going to oppose it. I don't feel like that makes me a bad person. Who wants to flush $50K down the toilet?

Fifty years ago houses weren't so expensive, relative to income, and thus the risk wasn't as high. My parents bought their first house in 1969 for $17K, no student debt, no health insurance expenses, etc. So, if a highway was built in their backyard, they would've been much more concerned about the hit to their quality of life than to their finances.

View on HN

In areas of economic growth and growing density high rises going in around you only leads to higher property values. Eventually the dirt under your house is worth so much a developer will make you an offer you can’t refuse.

There is basically no evidence increasing density leads to anything but higher property values for everyone.

Respectfully, I disagree. I have a handful of friends/colleagues who had apartment complexes built nearby their suburban McMansions, and each one had the same story: increased traffic and vehicle congestion, decreased available street parking, increased noise pollution, increased pedestrian traffic, and yes, increased crime. All of these things will make property values go one direction, and it ain't higher.

Extreme example: Back in the 90s, a friend bought a brand new, suburban home. Two years later, an apartment complex was built on a vacant lot about two blocks away. Two years after that, the apartment complex started accepting Section 8's. The crime started almost immediately. His car was broken into. His house was broken into. Loud music all night. Beer bottles on his lawn in the morning. His once quiet suburban home was no more. He eventually sold and took a significant loss. I know I'm the bad guy for pointing this out, but facts are facts, and money is real. Increasing density where it was never intended will negatively impact your property value.

(^^^ I was told there were lawsuits, but California officials got involved and squashed it, saying basically, "We said they could accept Section 8's, and there ain't shit you can do about it. Suck it.")

I want to see the numbers on this. I have heard of something like this in LA before, but it's literally the only time somebody has come close to providing evidence that this actually happens, and is not just fear.

I suspect it has more to do with racial politics than with density, and goes back to something a lot like white flight and block busting in the past. At least, the LA example I'm aware of was largely because of that.

I mean, this is all just anecdota. So here’s mine.

Meanwhile, a single family home was turned into a 4-plex directly next to me, the units are each _renting_ out for more than my mortgage (which I got only a couple of years ago), and my property values went up… $350k in 1 year?

Yes, that dramatic. Because the apartment was a concrete signifier for the demand of the neighborhood.

Since I’m seeing some commentators mention something about LA: this is also in Los Angeles

Not from my experience. I lived in a neighborhood that was previously dominated by SFH and has since transitioned to mostly townhomes/apartments.

It's lucrative for a select few (i.e. early sellers) but once it passes an equilibrium point (i.e. too many apartment buildings, townhomes, etc.), developers move onto more lucrative areas and would-be SFH buyers no longer find the area desirable out of fear that a giant apartment or townhome will go up right next to them.

In my city, SFH-zoned homes are skyrocketing whereas SFH in non-SFH zones have still grown in value but at a far lower rate.

I disagree with this outlook, but wanted to commend you for being straight about it and not trying to cloak your vested economic interest in some bullshit about "neighbourhood character" or something. It's only when we can be honest about the rationale behind these types of views that we can take steps to address the underlying issues.

5% is 50k? Wow. That is a full on mansion, compound, some cattle, a nice truck, everything where I am. Just curious, is this a fairly fancy home in your area or just one of the jones's?

A million bucks is a standard 1500-sqft, 3/2 house in many (most?) areas of California these days. My house is anything but fancy.

Congrats on home ownership. That makes me sad. Must be tough for young folks to get a house.

Nowadays a million bucks is a 2BR condo in much of the Bay Area.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com