Hacker News Reader

Comment by rainsford | Hacker News Reader

I wonder how much of American NIMBYism is due to framing the debate exclusively in terms of giving more people a place to live (i.e. helping other people) instead of looking at the benefits of housing density to the people who already live there. The poll results for Democrats in particular suggest they view building more housing as a thing you do to help other people, so they're in favor of it, but they view it as a negative for existing residents, so they'd rather it happened somewhere else.

I think a lot of the debate would change and YIMBYism would be more popular if there was more emphasis on why you want more housing where you live, and not just as an act of charity to would-be homeowners. It's not for everyone and it's not 100% upside, but increased housing density has a lot going for it because it encourages building stuff close to where you live that simply would not exist without a critical mass of people.

View on HN

You’d do better with some kind of insurance for property values I think. That’s what people are worried about.

I would mention that it may actually cause property values to go up for single family homeowners. Reason being a developer would have the ability to buy the whole property and build an apartment building.

Each apartment may cost less than the house that was there before, but the value of property together (land + apartment building + individual units) is sure to cost more than when only a single home was on it.

Condo owners, on the other hand, would see the value of their units decrease with the extra competing supply. This, of course, being one of the benefits of YIMBYism for everyone else (increases affordability).

> I would mention that it may actually cause property values to go up for single family homeowners.

This is an exception more than a rule, and generally only for specific areas that might be gentrifying or for home owners in very old properties that might border a larger land area a developer might buy.

And then you always have holdouts which could spoil the deal, which leads to IMO one of the most evil government things there is in the US in modern times—eminent domain

Eminent domain is amazing. It should be used more often. The key is that the people whose property is being taken should be fairly compensated.

What’s “fair”? Who gets to chose that number? The developer? The government that stands to gain from larger tax revenue from the same property?

Sorry it’s a purely evil thing. Specifically designed to rid poor people of property to enrich the pockets of wealthier people. Hell, Donald Trump was the biggest cheerleader of its use in the ‘90s.

Others, though, see increased higher density housing as more traffic, increased crowding in existing schools, and lowering property values. At least in the US, higher density housing in the surburbs is seen as a negative, even if there may be some benefits, however nebulous.

I get the concern for sure, but is it actually a risk that needs mitigation, or just a concern that needs better information?

I haven't conducted a comprehensive study, but my general sense is that the value of any given housing unit correlates fairly positively with density. An average sized single family house in the middle of a dense city is generally going to be worth way more than the same house located in an exurb. I'm sure there are counter examples, but I'd be willing to bet that for the most part, the denser the area, the more valuable the housing.

Basic supply and demand might suggest the value of your house would go down the more housing is built in your neighborhood, but that ignores that more housing might create even more demand because the increased population and density makes it a more desirable place to live. And if you own lower density housing from before all that growth, your house can demand a premium for people who want the benefits of density but are able to pay for more space for themselves.

Houses are for living, not to be your piggy bank.

But for decades, the US economy has sold SFH as just that. Every time I go to the bank, I get solicited by a bank employee to take out a HELOC.

I agree that's how it should be, but unfortunately buying a house is commonly understood to be a great investment strategy. And in this precarious economy with few safety nets, people clutch tightly to their home values. These people also have lots of power within HOAs (a strange and powerful quasi-government structure) and tends to be more influential in local politics.

As someone with progressive politics, I believe this is a huge problem.

The problem is that zoning is so incredibly restricted, if any place becomes even vaguely developed in a modern mix use way, property prices go up like crazy.

If simply everything was getting developed, then the impact would be much more distributed.

There is also systematic bias and failure in the property assessment system. Strongtowns has been doing a lot of work on that.

> the benefits of housing density to the people who already live there

In other words, propagandize them?

Maybe people are capable to seeing things for themselves.

> Maybe people are capable to seeing things for themselves.

Except that no one builds their opinions in a vacuum. There are a lot of truths and viewpoints that we wouldn't consider without outside influence.

False NIMBY narratives run deep.

> There are a lot of truths and viewpoints that we wouldn't consider without outside influence

This goes nowhere, except towards censorship. Maybe the NIMBYs did hear the YIMBYs arguments but didn't buy them.

> This goes nowhere, except towards censorship.

I don’t understand what you’re talking about. How could sharing views and facts could lead towards censorship?

well, you said "False NIMBY narratives run deep." There's a worldwide move towards censoring "misinformation" which certainly sounds like what some people want. Do those "false NIMBY narratives" need to be suppressed?

If you just want to provide other views, then carry on.

If people could infer everything themselves there would be no need for educational material. Just sit a child down at an intersection and tell them to observe.

> In other words, propagandize them?

Why make this comment? Maybe I'm capable of seeing things in the OP's comment for myself.

It's not an explanation of OP; it's a characterization. You're free to disagree with it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com