> The homeowners aren’t selfish, they are motivated. Why would they act against something that would clearly devalue them?
That isn't actually what happens -- and the misunderstanding is what causes so much of the conflict.
If you rezone for high density, the price per square foot goes down, but the price per acre goes way up -- because suddenly developers will pay you a mint for your land so they can knock down your house and build a high rise there.
The people who theoretically lose out are the people who own property way out in the suburbs, because most people won't want to live there and spend two hours in traffic every day once they can afford to live in the city. But even they don't really lose out because now they can afford to live in the city and the value of not having to sit in traffic every day is worth more than what they're losing on their house.
The whole thing is just a huge misunderstanding. A cynic might suggest the narrative was devised by the banks to drive up mortgage loan principal amounts. Or the car companies to keep people from living in places with viable mass transit.
It's a death spiral waiting to happen. Companies will move away from areas where their employees can't get hosting. Not many have to move before the rest start to follow, and the speculative part of the home valuations disappear.
Either they let the pressure out gradually or the thing is going to pop.
matte_black|7 years ago
If the roles were reversed I doubt these observers would be calling for a change in narrative.
AnthonyMouse|7 years ago
That isn't actually what happens -- and the misunderstanding is what causes so much of the conflict.
If you rezone for high density, the price per square foot goes down, but the price per acre goes way up -- because suddenly developers will pay you a mint for your land so they can knock down your house and build a high rise there.
The people who theoretically lose out are the people who own property way out in the suburbs, because most people won't want to live there and spend two hours in traffic every day once they can afford to live in the city. But even they don't really lose out because now they can afford to live in the city and the value of not having to sit in traffic every day is worth more than what they're losing on their house.
The whole thing is just a huge misunderstanding. A cynic might suggest the narrative was devised by the banks to drive up mortgage loan principal amounts. Or the car companies to keep people from living in places with viable mass transit.
lallysingh|7 years ago
Either they let the pressure out gradually or the thing is going to pop.
Naritai|7 years ago
pcwalton|7 years ago
Not me, and not lots of other homeowners, judging by the polls. NIMBYism is common, but most Californians do want more housing constructed.