[bobthepanda]

Homeowners don’t really care about the cost of subsidies since they benefit the most from it.

The real problem is that zoning is decided at the local level; local turnout is not very high, so it doesn’t take that many concerned homeowners to overthrow someone who is too pro-growth. And usually local municipalities are balkanized subsets of the region, who want all the upside of regional growth but none of the downside. In the most extreme example, the Bay Area, this leads to lots of permits for job expansion in small localities but not for housing, since residents need a lot more in the way of services.

It would be much more healthy to have zoning laid out at the state or regional level, but regional level governments don’t even really exist in the American context, and only a few cities in America have continued annexing suburban areas into the 21st century.

[asdff]

Power is completely fucked at the local level in a lot of places. In LA councilmen have basically unilateral power on what gets built in their district, and of the people who vote something crazy like 70% are homeowners (which only make up 30% of the population of LA iirc). So NIMBYism in LA ends up with grossly disproportionate representation that isn't going to ever change until the city charter does, probably long after the city is completely fucked from being unable to build housing supply or transit needed to sustain economic development. It's hard not to be a cynic when these people have just so much entrenched power.

[lotsofpulp]

>The real problem is that zoning is decided at the local level; local turnout is not very high, so it doesn’t take that many concerned homeowners to overthrow someone who is too pro-growth.

Hence removing the subsidies or at least making explicit the cost of subsidies, so people are incentivized to go out and vote for increases in supply. Another option is to hand over ownership to government and make everyone do land leases to make them participate in the market and therefore vote the “right” way. Not a perfect solution of course.

[bobthepanda]

The problem is that, in general, wealthy and older people are more likely to turnout and vote, and more likely to participate in lower level elections, and this class of people is well-correlated with owning homes. So homeowners have quite a lot of power even compared to renters, and they are more than happy to flex it. They don't really care that there are subsidies, because they're the primary beneficiaries.

[dsfyu404ed]

>It would be much more healthy to have zoning laid out at the state or regional level, but regional level governments don’t even really exist in the American context, and only a few cities in America have continued annexing suburban areas into the 21st century.

Not just zoning, soooooo much shit would be better done at the regional level because it would allow the urban areas to do what they think is best for them without pissing off the rural areas (or needing their approval) and vise versa.