Hacker News Reader

Comment by dcgudeman | Hacker News Reader

"You'd think we had enough of those already, but no.". The market determines when "we have had enough" not some arbitrary limit imposed by a current resident.

View on HN

It's hardly a free market - it would certainly be more profitable to build a midrise with 20+ less expensive units rather than one expensive unit on a given lot - but zoning restrictions mean it can't happen.

"More profitable" would include the cost of getting the zoning changed.

Generally any neighborhood meeting will also have people providing input that more units will cause more traffic so could the developer please create fewer, more expensive units?

What market? Developers are tripping over themselves to build housing in Cambridge/Somerville.

But zoning gets in the way all the time. For example, Somerville was going to get a new development in Davis Square. And the developer jumped through all the hoops. The city literally changed the zoning map so that they could only build labs and no housing.

Then there is no shortage of the housing. Local people are satisfied with zoning and current state. Prices are going up, everyone who has some ownership have profit. New people, who wants to move to the city - they are screwed.

So to be fair in some areas, the majority of voters are renters. BUT most of these don't vote (they do whine). The rest vote. Of those who vote, plenty are NIMBY - they have theirs and they don't want any change to their neighborhood. So that yeah, we are screwed (except that the voters actually ARE getting what they want. Just that what they want is messed up.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com