[kindatrue]

I just think about this letter to the Atherton (median sold home price: $7.6M) Mayor and City Council:

===

Subject line: IMMENSELY AGAINST multifamily development!

    I am writing this letter to communicate our IMMENSE objection to the creation of multifamily overlay zones in Atherton … Please IMMEDIATELY REMOVE all multifamily overlay zoning projects from the Housing Element which will be submitted to the state in July. They will MASSIVELY decrease our home values, the quality of life of ourselves and our neighbors and IMMENSELY increase the noise pollution and traffic.

Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen and Marc Andreessen

<address>

4 Properties on <street>

===

Everyone economic freedom and deregulation, until it means more people living near them.

(From https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre...)

[AlexandrB]

What gets me is the dramatic language. I don't think home values would "massively" decrease with a few multi-family residences in the area. What's funny too is that even if they did, the Andreessen family is one that could easily afford to eat the loss.

Meanwhile no one blinks twice when home prices increase 20% over just a few years and put housing out or reach of even more families.

[ben7799]

If they have 4 properties on the street they are likely renting them and just trying to create barriers in the market for someone else to be able to rent units. Multi-family units in that area would probably reduce their ability to raise the rents on their 4 properties.

[dclusin]

My personal belief is that the housing supply scarcity is having the opposite effect and is actually holding property values down. Let’s say there’s two 1 acre lots that have a market value of $1m each. A developer can buy them and turn them into 8 condos and sell them each $600k yielding $4.8m. Is it possible the developer would pay more than $1m apiece for these properties? Obviously, these numbers are made up someone who has no real estate experience. with current prices the way they are largely due to zoning and external factors, the base economic case for these things holding down property values seems at the least a defensible argument.

[lotsofpulp]

At the property values referenced in above post, the opposition to apartment buildings is not exactly about properties’ sale prices. Presumably, the residents are happy where they live, so their priority is not in maximizing the sale price, but keeping the riff raff out that cannot afford $1M+ homes, and hence have to live in apartments.

The concern about decrease in home prices is just cover from accusations of discrimination, although keeping home prices high is a necessary component. But maximizing them is not.

[dclusin]

Yeah that’s a good point. That the value argument is actually just a veiled way of saying people and buildings that don’t look like the way we want them to look.

[carom]

This is 100% true up until demand is met, then it will stabilize. Currently though, the more you can utilize land the more it is worth.

Single families can compete against 2 families for the land, it is a lot harder when you can fit 10 units on the same property.

[dgs_sgd]

Really astounding that a supposed philanthropist can write a letter like this and at the same time allegedly dedicate her life to improving people's welfare (the definition of philanthropy). I get that objecting to the housing development doesn't necessarily imply she's not an effective philanthropist, but the strong wording and outright dismissal really makes me think that her motives for doing philanthropy are more about power and a feeling of importance than an actual concern for others.

[Yizahi]

Wow, just... wow...