[boreas]

Personally, it strikes me as profoundly illiberal that we allow and expect from local governments such complete control over private use of private property.

It is probably one of the most important policy issues from an economic/social perspective, and yet it doesn't have a clear valence in today's binary, identitarian political discourse. I see people from all backgrounds and affiliations arguing for/against upzoning/housing density.

[abakker]

I tend to agree that it is problematic to embed so much power into local governments. They are ill equipped to handled the research required to make those choices meaningfully. The smaller and poorer the towns, the less equipped they are to be informed.

There is a kind of loop that happens in this debate, though.

1. we want progress, 2. progress requires money, 3. money requires growth 4. growth requires change 5. change is not always progress...

Whether or not you agree with the premise of any items on that loop, it seems to happen that the loop is the refrains of all small governments (and maybe large ones?) who need to fund all of their actions out of current and future receivables. Without changes that increase property value (and therefore taxes), many small governments in the US have few levers for progress. If they levy higher taxes in other forms, it puts a regressive burden on their poorest members, if they do nothing then they can't be progressive.

I tend to think of the shortcomings as a matter of debt, mostly. Debt is the ultimate anti-progressive force, since it sticks around long after mistakes have been made. many municipalities have increased levels of debt to keep up with the levels of progress they require, but the debts need to be funded by future revenues, which means growth in future revenues.

An uncomfortable conclusion of this is that even if our smaller governments acted with the best of intent, They will be left paying for their mistakes for many years to come, and that those financial commitments to projects which did not pay off in hindsight may cripple their ability to make correct choices now.

edit: source on State and Local Debt: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11502

[boreas]

I would hope that increasing density doesn't require much upfront investment. It's definitely true that density creates more strain on public goods like roads that are disproportionately funded by yesterday's taxpayers. I guess that is a pretty reasonable externality to incorporate into permitting fees.

[abakker]

It’s the load on parking, sewer, electric, gas lines, school districts, hospitals, etc. it all adds up, and if you recover all the costs from the permitting, then nobody will build. It is quite complicated.

[thatfrenchguy]

When you rezone, it doesn't force houses to be torn down, it just allows people to build denser.

[antepodius]

Which may well devalue someone's house as much as tearing down a supporting wall would...

[microcolonel]

The thing is, it was sold to current owners of single-family dwellings as a sort of “right” not to have too many neighbours to know them all, so if you take that away now, it is going to be unpopular.

I think part of this could be solved by just not living in the Bay Area, and choosing to live somewhere with a better zoning law (like Houston) and take a cycle to genuinely understand how politics produces that good before voting, I know that sounds crazy.

[julienb_sea]

Ultimately it is about protection of personal property. The value and and desirability of your personal property is directly tied to adjacent properties and the neighborhood. Height restrictions prevent someone building a tall building and blocking your view, which would have significant and direct cost to your asset value. Zoning restrictions ensure the neighborhood stays safe and quiet, another direct contributor of asset value.

This is not sustainable at scale, clearly density is necessary. But, there is a legitimate case for protecting private property values, creating density where it makes sense but not where it doesn't.

[boreas]

I wonder if there is any data on how upzoning affects suburban property values. I would prefer not to live in a single family detached house next to condos. Then again, the optionality to put 10+ units on a lot has to be worth something.

[adammunich]

"we support housing, just not in our neighborhood"

[lotsofpulp]

Everyone wants to surround themselves with those at a socioeconomic status above them, or at worst equal to them.

[rootsudo]

Agreed, even as I am currently home searching - this, I want to be the worst house in the neighborhood.

Not the best, never the best.