[Pet_Ant]

Sorry but in housing the value comes from "Location, location, location". If a neighbourhood can change into anything what kind of confidence do I have about the home that I'm buying? Things are already variable enough as is. Maybe if zoning changes had a 20 year window from being enacted to being effected. That might balance out needs.

(In case it's suggested otherwise, I live in urban high-density housing, I'm just sympathetic to the concerns of others)

[AbrahamParangi]

The answer is quite clearly that it is immoral to allow those who can afford homes from being protectionist about their assets when it comes at the expense of those who lack affordable housing.

The need for housing outweighs the desire to get a return on your investment.

[RestlessMind]

> quite clearly that it is immoral

> The need for housing

And who is the arbiter of this morality or the urgency of this need? I say it would be elections where everyone in that area gets a chance to vote and decide for themselves.

[disgruntledphd2]

Unfortunately, home owners vote at a higher rate, so this is unlikely to happen (even though it probably should).

[RestlessMind]

Why don't renters or homeless vote at a higher rate?

[ElevenLathe]

Why would we use municipal regulation as a way to give homebuyers "confidence" that their neighborhood will never change?

[lesuorac]

Circular logic?

Municipal regulation has been keeping the neighborhood the same so why not expect it will continue to?

[bombcar]

Because the homebuyers just are the municipality?

And as we're seeing here, if they can't get what they want one way they do it another way.

I've always thought the way out (besides just waiting until a neighborhood is an absolute shithole of a slum and can be redeveloped because poor people have little political power) is just to straight up bribe people. New developments have a "fee" that is directly applied in cash to other homes in the area to reduce property tax.

Everyone likes a good bribe.

[ElevenLathe]

> homebuyers just are the municipality

I think in most US states, the legal situation is actually that local governments are creations of the state. They are allowed to have their own ordinances and so on as a matter of convenience, to avoid state legislators having to bother worrying about every edge case that only comes up in one county, but they do not have a right to exist independent of the state saying that they do. There are exceptions, but municipal ordinances (and HOA rules) can be overridden by state law.

We don't /have/ to let all these little NIMBY fiefdoms exist. They exist at the pleasure of the state legislature, and therefore voters statewide, not just locally (modulo gerrymandering, a big caveat).

[bombcar]

We're seeing that play out right now in California, the state overrode local areas and the problem hasn't gone away, it's shifted to other avenues.

If you don't change hearts and minds they'll keep fighting against it via any method available.

[theluketaylor]

Study after study shows that the value of property goes up when density increases, not the other way around. People who cling to property values as a gatekeeper are actually arguing against their self-interest, usually without knowing it.

[rootusrootus]

> People who cling to property values as a gatekeeper are actually arguing against their self-interest, usually without knowing it.

That is rarely the reason, in my experience. It is merely an accusation that gets thrown around by people who want the NIMBYs to look shallow. There are usually far more specific reasons for opposing new development.

There are always just a few, however, who do want the money. So they cash in and sell out to developers, and then move to a less dense neighborhood. Eventually the whole neighborhood character does in fact change, it just takes years.