[ogre_codes]

This is literally the exact opposite of what an environmentalist would want in terms of urban growth and planning. Environmentally friendly planning means you have housing near where people work to avoid highly polluting long commutes.

The problem is NIMBY bullshit in the purest sense. People will use every excuse in the book to prevent new housing in their neighborhood. While a fair amount of the time environmental policies are abused to block development, zoning laws are also abused, parking/ land use legislation, hell I've seen houses blocked because they increase the shade in a park by 2% for half an hour during the evening.

None of this is "environmentalism", its rich people standing on a high hill screwing over everyone else beneath them.

[BurningFrog]

It's not rational environmentalism, but I'm sure a lot of NIMBYs are honestly convinced they're fighting for Mother Earth, and the simultaneous explosive value increase of their home is purely coincidental.

Motivated Reasoning is a hell of a thing!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

[njarboe]

Prop 13 and rent control both highly encourage NIMBYism and I would say are more important factors than property values. If a large apartment is built next to your house and you don't like the extra noise, the big shadow, and lots of people looking into your back yard, you could decide to move. Without prop 13 selling your house and moving a few blocks over to a location you like better is a pain in the ass and you have to pay off the realtors, but once you move, you just get on with your life. With prop 13 your property tax could double or triple, say going from $1000 a month to $3000 a month. This $2000 a month, every month, is going to make you mad and hurt you financially constantly for the rest of your life. No wonder people fight so hard to keep things like it was when they moved in.

People with rent control are under the same incentives. Have a $2000 rent controlled apartment that would rent for $4000? If something changes in your neighborhood the makes you want to move, you don't really have that option. So you fight really hard against changes.

The longer Prop 13 is around the worse it gets and California has just passed statewide rent control. Things will continue to get worse on this front and I don't see a way for California society to change the situation.

[mdavidn]

This is the problem. Prop 13 creates perverse incentives that are not obvious to owners in other states.

One doesn't need to live in California long before they see a community leaflet opposing a local housing development. These developments, on the surface, all look like great ideas. The stated reasons to oppose the permit all seem thin: Accusing the developer of greed, or claiming that traffic will get worse. Homes closer to work and a local discount store do increase traffic on surrounding streets but decrease cross-town traffic in the wider area. They might even encourage people to walk!

[rayiner]

> California has just passed statewide rent control. Things will continue to get worse on this front and I don't see a way for California society to change the situation.

They did just change the situation. They made it worse!

[njarboe]

The beatings will continue until moral improves.

[hashouseincali]

This logic makes no sense and people like myself can afford to keep our houses mainly because of prop 13. Since buying my house almost 8 years ago the market has double at no fault of my own. This would double my taxes making a good portion unable to be written off thanks to new IRS rules. Yet, you want to call that locked-in? I love my house and where I live but it would be painful with that extra $2k a month tax bill you mentioned.

[njarboe]

This is an unfortunate result of how California deals with property tax. In many places the property taxes go mostly/all to the school district and the city/county. When property values go up a lot there is no reason that they have to keep the property tax at the same rate. They could lower it to keep the expenditures the same. In some places they even just figure out a budget for the year and then set the property tax accordingly.

California property tax mostly goes to the state and it funds schools by giving money back to the local districts (except about 60 really rich ones that opted out!) based on the number of student days/school. I'm not really sure, but I think that prop 13 passed after the state started taking property tax money. That would make sense as people like to have control of how there taxes are spent.

[mdavidn]

When someone proposes a four plus one housing development around the corner from your house to help address the state's housing shortage, would you oppose it? You can't move if you don't like it, after all, since you'd lose your property tax break.

If you oppose such developments, then the higher value of your home _is your fault_.

[hashouseincali]

Im in favor of any housing that makes sense but dont espouse the logic that just because someone wants to move to a town everyone has to agree to let giant apartment blocks get put up. I did indeed buy where Im at because I enjoyed the small town culture but I understand the need for managed growth. My town is already overwhelmed with infrastructure and water issues that poorly planned growth will exacerbate. There is a lot of land in Cali we dont all need to live on the coast. Being here is a privilege not a right and Im not being selfish wanting to keep that for which Ive worked hard. Growth is inevitable ... Poorly planned cities are not. Just look at Daly city if you want to see the ugly side of unhindered housing expansion and poor infrastructure. Further, your argument still doesnt engender the need to get rid of prop 13...

[mdavidn]

All of your arguments have the side effect of increasing the value of your home, thereby making you more dependent on Prop 13.

[hashouseincali]

Another point tho ... where I live doubling the taxes and pricing out those holding on with fingernails will only speed the gentrification. I would have no problem selling my house right now at market value and the buyers from the valley wouldnt bat an eye at the taxes ... not even including the foreign buyers coming in to hide the peoples squandered moneys. Prop 13 aids those like myself by keeping us out of the market loop ... I feel no pressure to sell and have no interest in buying again.

[mdavidn]

Prop 13 does keep you in that home, true, but a more stable home value would also keep taxes low. One way to keep home values low is to build high-density housing in the area. Such projects are opposed by local home owners in California.

[BurningFrog]

Yeah, the lock-in effect of both Prop 13 and rent control deserve a lot more awareness!

Reminds me of what I've heard about working in the academic world: Since people often have a job for life, workplace conflict can't be resolved as everywhere else, where someone switches job or gets fired. Instead people make each other's life hell forever.

Just a story I've heard, I have no personal experience. But I've heard it several times.

[joe_the_user]

GP: Curse those environmentalists Parent: This obviously isn't environmentally friendly or motivated and the opposite of what an environmentalist would want. You: Well, they believe they're being environmental, even if it's self serving BS (here, let define self-serving BS).

[BurningFrog]

One realization that's helped me a lot:

Yes, people talking self serving nonsense are lying. But they're primarily lying to themselves!!!

Essential book: https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Brain-Hidden-Motives-Everyda...

TED talk version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V84_F1QWdeU

[joe_the_user]

Yes, people talking self serving nonsense are lying. But they're primarily lying to themselves!

When we're talking this kind of phenomena, we certainly using language at a very high level of abstraction. But the "color" of how one expresses one's self matters even more. What "primary" means here is key, for example.

People talking self-serving nonsense often believe what they're saying, maybe more than someone taking a rational position ('cause rationality involves some self doubt).

The main question, in a sense is "are these people 'out to get us'?". On the one hand, one can give the defense, "they aren't consciously trying to put their interests ahead of yours and aren't trying to deceive you" but there's the other factor that this sort of strategy can be the very best strategy for people putting their interests ahead of you and /or deceiving you, which makes them your most effective enemies.

I mean, if you dig deep down, the terrible people "are victims too". Does that mean you shouldn't blame them? Well, the terrible people need to be defeated and punished appropriately, in a judgmental way, to prevent them from doing the stuff we don't like and to fill those who might consider it with fear (still non-judgmentally).

[BurningFrog]

> On the one hand, one can give the defense, "they aren't consciously trying to put their interests ahead of yours and aren't trying to deceive you"

Almost. There needs to be a "consciously" before each "trying".

Because they are trying to deceive you, but the conscious part of their (or, just as much, our) mind doesn't know it.

It helps to think of the brain as dozens of more or less independent units, most of which are unconscious.

The common metaphor is:

If you think of the brain as something like the White House, the conscious part ("me") assumes it is the President. In reality it is the Press Secretary, tasked with coming up with arguments for why what the real decision makers decided is a great idea.

[Aperocky]

Ah, so exactly what happened with Hong Kong and their public housing. Blocked by homeowners who don't want their real estate to go down in value. Now it's one of the most expensive place in the world with New Territory largely empty.

[api]

Property owner cabals blocking development like this is cartel capitalism at the local level. What you have here is a cartel restricting supply to profit from scarcity.

[sbierwagen]

>Environmentally friendly planning means you have housing near where people work to avoid highly polluting long commutes.

Vehicle miles driven doesn't make as big of a difference as one might expect. A paper[0] I saw linked on reddit had an interesting graph: https://imgur.com/a/n7u8fGH

In this paper, what carbon emissions you lose by not driving you gain from building emissions. Maybe because the study area was New York, with more fuel oil-heated buildings? Presumably, decarbonized heating and electricity generation would make a difference, but New York state already is pretty good by that metric: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/newyork/ (Though nowhere near carbon neutral, or carbon negative, as would be required for keeping global warming to 2C)

---

0: Andrews, C. J. (2008). Greenhouse gas emissions along the rural-urban gradient. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560802423780 If you don't want to buy the PDF, then visit the crow site.

[zamfi]

I think you missed the central point of this paper. It's true that there is an offsetting factor of building energy use vs. VMT, but the reality remains that denser environments, with jobs near residents, emit less per capita -- as that graph you linked to shows.

What's surprising is that at the other end of the spectrum, in rural (not sub-urban) areas, other factors (forests, etc.) combine to cause lower per-capita emissions than suburbs (and in some cases, negative per-capita emissions because of sequestration).

Basically, from a carbon-emissions perspective, post-war suburbs are unsurprisingly worst, rural areas get some help from sequestration in forests (this fact being the contribution of the paper), and dense urban environments are the least-emitting.

[MrMoenty]

I think part of the problem of this graph is that it attributes commercial building emissions to the municipalities in which they are placed, even though these buildings might be used by residents and commuters alike.

So if you move into the city instead of commuting, you might be using the same commercial buildings a before, but their emissions are suddenly attributed to you.