[davidw]

Did you read the origins of their zoning code? "Protecting" the city by attempting to limit Black people to certain areas. Not a great look.

A lot of zoning code is based on similar ideas, even if most people are not dumb enough to say the quiet part out loud these days.

You do still hear it on occasion: Bend, Oregon, where I live, passed a similar change a few years back, which was then superseded by Oregon's HB 2001, which effectively eliminates exclusionary zoning in our cities. At the local hearing for the Bend rule, there was a woman who was really upset that "renters" might be able to live in her neighborhood. They're dirty, messy, and "don't care about where they live", according to her testimony.

It's economic segregation, plain and simple.

[Lammy]

> A lot of zoning code is based on similar ideas, even if most people are not dumb enough to say the quiet part out loud these days.

That's the way it's always been. Here's an '80s example I ran across just the other day, and I'm actually grimly impressed by the clever video editing that puts up a WW2-era photo of mostly-white schoolkids to anchor a viewer's thinking away from "is this racist?" just as he says the worst part about "them" lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=973&v=jCMvOiupDLo

[cameldrv]

I can’t say what was in that woman’s head, but neighborhoods that have a lot of rentals tend to have a different character independent of race. Homeowners have stable enough lives to have saved up a down payment, they tend to be older and have families. They also have a reason to not annoy their neighbors, because they will have to live with them for many years.

Now, younger less settled people also need places to live, and the Bay Area’s solution is to send them to Stockton or something, but not everything is about race.

[rsync]

"Homeowners have stable enough lives to have saved up a down payment, they tend to be older and have families. They also have a reason to not annoy their neighbors, because they will have to live with them for many years."

This can be generalized - beyond the housing debate - as "having skin in the game".

As someone who has been (at various times) a short and long term renter, a landlord, and a homeowner ... it rings true to me that, generally speaking, renters invest less in their homes and their neighborhoods and have less at stake in the outcomes of those neighborhoods/communities.

That was certainly the case with me as a renter.

I don't think it's morally negative to segregate neighborhoods on the basis of renting vs. owning. The attempts to link this kind of segregation to past periods of literal racial segregation is, in my opinion, going to find less and less traction - especially as non-white stakeholders (homeowners) aspire to the same kind of skin-in-the-game cooperation with their neighbors.

[whimsicalism]

> non-white stakeholders (homeowners) aspire to the same kind of skin-in-the-game cooperation with their neighbors.

What about the rampant housing discrimination in home-buying (without any enforcement) [0]? What about massive racial wealth disparates?

I think it is pretty naïve to suggest that the current backlash against having "renters" has nothing to do with race. Not more naïve than suggesting it only has to do with race, but close.

[0]: https://projects.newsday.com/long-island/real-estate-agents-...

[rsync]

Well, we could argue about this ad infinitum ...

Or, we could take a shortcut and ask those very people what they think and what they would like.

Which is to say, let's find some non-white stakeholders (homeowners) with skin in the game in their neighborhoods and communities and ask them what they think.

I drive through some very nice, very well ordered, single family zoned nieghborhoods in Fremont - the owners of which are predominantly non-white. The same exists in many other bay area communities.

Are those people vehemently advocating for upzoning and loss of local control ? Do those people have a strong preference for owners over renters ?

Genuinely curious ...

[Lammy]

Can I also be a stakeholder if I'd like to live in a particular neighborhood but have been priced out by their "local control"?

[throwawaysea]

Thanks for sharing that article. I agree that those who are setting different financial requirements for different races or asking for different information (like identification) before showing homes are discriminating based on race, and should be investigated. Leaving those instances aside, there are also times when directing clients to certain neighborhoods based on race may not be a bad thing. For example many minorities want to seek out a community they are comfortable with (in terms of language, access to religious services, ethnic grocery stores, or even just neighbors with similar lifestyles). This is especially true for first-generation immigrants or the elderly, for whom living in a less ethnically-accommodating neighborhood may be a difficult adjustment because they may not have shared experiences with those around them.

[davidw]

How do people get any "skin in the game" if the incumbents do their utmost to impose policies that prevent that from happening?

In some cities in California, houses are "earning" more on an hourly - yes, hourly - basis than many people do:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article208678414.html

That's a bit dated, pre-pandemic, but it's likely still happening in places.

[whimsicalism]

I mean, the time derivative of housing prices has gotten higher during the pandemic, not lower.

[davidw]

In San Francisco proper, prices fell, because supply and demand are real, but those people spread out and prices are getting worse in a ton of other places, like where I live.

[whimsicalism]

> In San Francisco proper, prices fell, because supply and demand are real,

Source on real estate prices in SF falling?

[karpierz]

> it rings true to me that, generally speaking, renters invest less in their homes and their neighborhoods and have less at stake in the outcomes of those neighborhoods/communities.

Note that this isn't true in locations with actual renter's rights, like Switzerland.

[davidw]

"Economic segregation" is what I wrote, so not just race, but keeping those with less money away from "nice" neighborhoods and their good schools.

Plenty of people who rent might buy if there were more opportunities to do so, which there would be if housing weren't such an artificially scarce good in the US.

And when you describe 'those neighborhoods', keep in mind that that's probably a policy. If all neighborhoods had a mix of people, you wouldn't have quite so much of a concentration of people who aren't as wealthy.

[dahfizz]

> If all neighborhoods had a mix of people, you wouldn't have quite so much of a concentration of people who aren't as wealthy.

I don't think this is possible, or even desirable.

A huge part of a home's value is the neighborhood. How much crime is there? How good are the schools? How are the neighbors?

A "fancy" house and an "affordable" house in the same neighborhood are not going to have a large price difference. If you revert every neighborhood to the mean, then you more or less revert all property prices to the mean. Which means you have erased all the "affordable" housing options, and also reduced the QOL of the top 50% of people.

[AnthonyMouse]

You're missing the simple factor of square footage. A 1000 sq ft unit is going to be about a quarter of the price of a 4000 sq ft one for the simple reason that otherwise the larger unit would be subdivided or vice versa. So people with less money get less space, but that doesn't mean they can't live on the same street.

Also, even to the extent that values are dominated by other factors, the intention is to increase housing availability through higher supply and lower prices. All housing becoming as expensive as upper middle class housing would be a problem, but all housing becoming as affordable as existing low income housing would be great.

[dahfizz]

This only applies to "units", not houses. A similar rule could apply to lot size, but lot size only makes up a fraction of the value of a house.

[AnthonyMouse]

> This only applies to "units", not houses.

Your expectation is that a 1000 sq ft "house" on a quarter acre of land would cost on the order of the same amount as a 4000 sq ft "house" on a full acre of land?

[davidw]

It's telling that so often, in the US, we refer to "units" in things like apartments, but it's a "single family home".

[davidw]

You could at the very least, leave it to the market, rather than using government policy mostly shaped by older, wealthier people to heap more crap on people who are in less fortunate circumstances.

Where I lived in Italy, you actually had very different homes very close by - big expensive single family units right next to 10 plexes that are far more affordable.

Frankly, I think it was healthier for my kids to go to school there with both some kids from wealthy families as well as Nigerian immigrants. Their schools here are much more homogeneous.

[u678u]

> Plenty of people who rent might buy if there were more opportunities to do so, which there would be if housing weren't such an artificially scarce good in the US.

America has the cheapest housing in the Developed world. SF is not cheap, but its still cheaper than big cities in Europe.

[davidw]

Oh, I know something about that! I own a home in Padova, Italy.

Land is mostly cheaper in the US, but Italy and most of Europe provide far more housing options, in large part because they do not impose things like single family zoning.

Padova has twice the population of the town where I live here in the US, in about the same area, and housing is cheaper.

The economy isn't great there, but that's a separate story from housing. If it were hotter, it's a place where you can simply build homes in many shapes and sizes, from small apartments to nice villas.

[adolph]

Part of real property TCO is taxes. I wonder how Italy stacks up agains comparable areas of other countries.

https://www.accountingbolla.com/blog/property-tax-in-italy-g...

[foolinaround]

some neighbourhoods are nice in and of themselves, due to their geography, proximity, etc. most however are good only because of the people that reside in it.

When people of different classes ( not races ) have different opinions on what 'good' means, there is only going to be confusion.

even a good neighborhood, once it is deemed as undesirable, will lose its values, its taxes, and soon, its schools.

[syshum]

There are dual problems with renters, my personal experience leads me to believe it is not the renters that are the problem in neighborhoods with high amounts of renters.

While it is true the renter does not have "skin in the game" it is also true that many landlord put in only the absolute bare minimum of resources to maintain the rental property.

For example my grandmother before she passed lived in a aging neighborhood, as the original residents passed the homes where sold off as investment properties. She generally had a good relationship with most of the renters however the owners of homes routinely refused to repair things, refused to have proper tree maintenance done, and other such problems that would not be the responsibility of the renter.

[tt433]

If the property is adjacent to a gentrified neighborhood but not yet pricey, the landlord can degrade service until the low income tenants leave, renovate the property, and charge new gentrified prices as well. I know of a couple buildings in the DMV area that were doing this within the last 10 years

[syshum]

Well in my families case it was what ever the reverse of gentrification is. As the original owners died off in that neighborhood the neighborhood got worse and worse, more crime, less value, etc etc etc

The owners of the properties were not waiting out the poor people hoping to strike it rich like you seem to be implying

[tt433]

Just wanted to add there's lots of factors at play besides the renters specifically

[whimsicalism]

> not everything is about race.

Sure, but we're not talking about "everything", we're talking about housing trends in American cities.

[intrasight]

Just because the original intent may have bad doesn't mean that single family zoning in and of itself is bad. There are lots of municipalities with single family zoning. Mine does. Mine also doesn't allow any commercial property. And lots must be one acre or more. The residents want it this way. What's wrong with that?

[davidw]

Government enforced 1 acre lots is a good proxy for "keep the poor people out".

Also contributes massively to sprawl and thus carbon emissions because you can't have a more traditional sort of neighborhood where people might walk to the park and corner store.

Nothing against people owning a 1 acre lot if they want - that's fine! Imposing it on everyone is economic segregation.

[zug_zug]

>>> Government enforced 1 acre lots is a good proxy for "keep the poor people out".

Uhhh not in the very least. Many of us want to live in areas that have 3-acre minimum lots because of a little thing called nature. Those who want to live crammed into micro-apartments with 1 tree for every 30 people can, but those of us who want a whole town that is more grass that pavement should NOT be accused of classism or racism.

If you really want to help poor people, figure out a system that doesn't box them into ever-decreasing concrete apartments further and further from clean air.

[davidw]

Cities are actually 'greener' if you look at things on a global scale, rather than just having few trees outside that a few species (deer, say) have somewhat adapted to living in the urban/wildland interface.

If everyone lived on 3 acres, you know how much truly wild land would be paved over?

Now, I strongly agree that people ought to have the right to purchase and live on a large lot if they want. Great, you earned it, have fun!

Requiring that? That's using the government to perpetuate a sprawly, carbon-intensive lifestyle that very much does exclude those who are not wealthy enough to purchase that much land. That's part of the point in many places with that kind of regulation.

[zug_zug]

>> "That's using the government..."

The majority of residents of an area using the government to control that area is the pinnacle of democracy.

>> If everyone lived on 3 acres, you know how much truly wild land would be paved over?

Actually, no there's plenty of land in America. Nothing would be paved, it would just be moved to yards (hint yards aren't paved). And if the population doesn't grow, then there's no reason America can't live like that forever.

When excluding illegal immigration, the US population is actually shrinking. There's no need to artificially box ourselves in.

[adolph]

7.7b people. https://www.census.gov/popclock/world

15.77b acres of habitable land. http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/land.html

15.77 / 7.7 = 2.04

Every human could have about 2 acres. At this level of distribution humans would essentially live in wilderness and integrate with nature. Oftentimes humans live in family groups so the actual point distribution would be uneven.

Unfortunately arable land needed to feed the humans varies by locale but tops at about .6 hectacres [0] or 1.48 acres[1]. This means that effective wilderness could be slightly less than .5 acres per human after some nominal usage for housing and utility right of ways.

0. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/arable-land-use-per-perso...

1. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=.6+hectares+to+acres&atb=v83-1__&i...

[davidw]

> integrate with nature

That's false though. There are a lot of animals that do not want to be anywhere near humans, roads, houses or anything else. The presence of people wrecks it for them. Not to mention the jacked up carbon emissions if everyone had to drive around for everything because everyone is spread out.

[dave5104]

> Many of us want to live in areas that have 3-acre minimum lots because of a little thing called nature.

This is fine to have a town like this.

But a town like this has no business being in a major metropolitan area of the US such as the Bay Area. (I'm looking at you, Atherton.)

[davidw]

Here's a case in point of how it's utilized in practice:

https://www.vox.com/22252625/america-racist-housing-rules-ho...

[jdxcode]

> Those who want to live crammed into micro-apartments with 1 tree for every 30 people can.

We can't. That's the problem.

[pessimizer]

You can, just somewhere else.

[syshum]

>>Nothing against people owning a 1 acre lot if they want

Sounds like you do, you more or less accused anyone that desires a 1 acre plot of classism or wanting to "keep the poor people out", and of wanting to destroy the environment.

In reality most people that want that simply desire privacy, I for example desire that because i do not want to "walk to the corner store" or have a park at all in my neighborhood. I do not want to have "neighborhood" events, or be able to talk to my neighbor from my porch.

I want privacy, I want to be able to enjoy my hobbies which are solitary pursuits not group activities.

[intrasight]

My town is fully built out, so it's not being imposed upon anyone except perhaps developers. Nobody can purchase a house and tear it down and build four in it's place. The lot is only zoned for one house.

[davidw]

It's being imposed on people who own land, and on potential residents who might like to live there in a more affordable option.

[intrasight]

Some places are just not affordable. That's been true for literally thousands of years.

[Lammy]

> Imposing it on everyone is economic segregation.

I agree but only in the sense that it should include 39 more acres. And a mule.

[neilparikh]

Central planning is not something we should be encouraging, except for cases where the market fails. It's not clear to me there's a market failure that's being corrected with single family zoning.

Central planning leads to a situation where market signals are ignored, and entrenches the status quo, rather than allowing cities (and economies in general) to change as needed. It seems highly unlikely that we've stumbled upon the "perfect" land use pattern. Why make it impossible to change from it then?

[intrasight]

So you're agreeing, right? Have my town be free of "central planning" and set it's own course in terms of zoning.

[neilparikh]

What? How did you get that from my comment?

I'm referring to zoning as the central planning. It's central planning at a local scale, but still central planning.

Instead of letting each town set its own course, why not just let each property owner set their own course (within reasonable limits for market failures, like safety)?

My entire point is that restrictive zoning is the bureaucrats in the city governments deciding what the best use is for each plot of land, rather than letting the market decide based on demand.

Also, if we look at the Berkley case (which is what the OP is about!), there was no external force, the town made the change on its own.

[dominotw]

What does it matter what they are based on. GP's point " To serve the people living in the city." still holds.

[xvedejas]

We're discovering that zoning is a tragedy of the commons style issue where it may sound good for any individual city, but is detrimental if everyone does it. It makes no sense to put on blinders with respect to the problems cities create just because of some notion that cities can operate in a vacuum, narrowly focused inward at the expense of good citizenship.

[throwawaysea]

> Did you read the origins of their zoning code? "Protecting" the city by attempting to limit Black people to certain areas. Not a great look.

I've seen this claim in this discussion but without hard evidence that this was the sole or even primary motivation at the time (who would you even measure/prove that?). Regardless, it isn't the motivation today behind zoning so I am not sure why it matters what the motivation was 100 years ago. I feel like that's a weak attempt by urban activists to associate a negative label (like "racist") with zoning to trivialize the legitimate reasons people like zoning restrictions.

People want zoning so that they can retain the kind of city or neighborhood character they want to live in. There's nothing wrong with incumbents resisting change that accommodates others at their own expense. The point of local government is to serve the incumbent residents first and foremost and I don't see why the desires of newcomers to live wherever they want at whatever price point they want supersedes the quality of life that existing residents have sought out and cultivated for themselves previously. Those newcomers are certainly free to move to a part of the country with less demand than the Bay Area and make a life there.

> It's economic segregation, plain and simple.

Not really. It's segregation by people who are invested in their community versus people who may move on because they haven't put down deep roots. And even if it was economic segregation in effect or directly, so what? I, and certainly most other parents, want a safe neighborhood for our families, and higher income neighborhoods typically experience less crime. I also want better educated and more successful people in my neighborhood, because their children form the environment and society my children are exposed to and influenced by. Leaving all that aside, an influx of renters changes a city's politics, culture, and other characteristics. I've seen this first-hand in Seattle where the dramatic changes of the last 10 years have really hurt the quality of life in this city and crowded out 'old Seattle' culturally. So I see many understandable and legitimate reasons for people to want to avoid renters.

[majormajor]

So, if you end single family zoning, you'll likely be displacing lower-economic-status minorities once again. Perpetuating the cycle. Areas with cheaper land and higher rates of renter-occupied homes will be easier for developers to target and buy up the land.

I don't think you can make an argument that you're going to repair any past harms by doing this. I think the argument that you're going to continue them if you do this is much stronger.

[centimeter]

> "Protecting" the city by attempting to limit Black people to certain areas.

Why do you put protecting in quotes? The residents of areas typically like to be protected from demographic disruption, especially if the disrupting demographic is known to bring problems.

> Not a great look.

People are more worried about the place that they have to live, work, and raise their children than they are about your patronizing condescension.

[driverdan]

> especially if the disrupting demographic is known to bring problems.

So racism, got it.

[frongpik]

Call it racism, if you want. Homeowners conspiring to protect their neighborhood from people who aren't up to their standard isn't different than a country setting up an army to protect its borders from low quality foreigners.

[imtringued]

And here I thought the purpose of the army is to defend against high quality foreigners violating our laws.