[mywittyname]

I'm often skeptical of simple solutions like this. They tend to assume that the regulation causes the problem, but when looked at more critically, it's clear that the regulation is a formalization of a combination of consumer & business preference.

For example, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations. If you get into the gritty details, you'll find that they have a whole bunch ofloopholes that seem to favor larger trucks & SUVs. Many people will point to these regulation as causing people to buy light trucks & SUVs, but the data seems to suggest consumers prefer to buy these vehicles and auto manufacture prefer to sell them (they are extremely profitable). I postulate that, if CAFE requirements were eliminated, the best selling vehicle in the USA would continue to be the F-series and other trucks and SUVs would continue to dominate the top 10, because the regulations are influenced by consumer preference, not the other way around.

I think the same logic applies to zoning. People largely want to own single family homes (SFH) in the suburbs; builders largely want to build SFHs in the suburbs. There's no reason to believe that changes in zoning will cause a meaningful shift in consumer and business preference. In the handful of ultra expensive metro areas, sure it might move the needle because economics trump preference, but in most of the USA, there's plenty of space to build housing. It's hard to imagine a developer in Pittsburgh choosing to build housing in an industrial area in the city over some empty land on the outskirts.

[marssaxman]

I appreciate your skepticism! The proposition that rates of homelessness are primarily driven by housing costs has actually been well supported in research - this Pew article contains many useful references:

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/...

As per econ 101, high prices are a function of scarcity relative to demand: we can reasonably claim that regulations which restrict housing development, which by their nature must increase scarcity and therefore housing costs, therefore also lead to increased rates of homelessness.

> In the handful of ultra expensive metro areas, sure it might move the needle

That's a good point, but those are exactly the places which have significant homelessness problems.

In general, this is not a housing preference issue, because opposition to upzoning does not come from people who aspire to live in single-family homes, but from people who already own them. This is a typical example:

https://www.change.org/p/whittier-neighbors-against-seattle-...

As usual with these things, the complaints include a cloud of nitpicky nonsense surrounding a central concern over "neighborhood character", which is a polite way of saying "we don't want apartment-dwelling poor people coming to live near us".

[toss1]

>>which is a polite way of saying "we don't want apartment-dwelling poor people coming to live near us".

NO, it is most definitely NOT that.

It is overwhelmingly exactly what people say it is — maintaining the character of a neighborhood that everyone there has paid higher cost of entry, cost of taxes, and cost and time of maintenance and upgrades to maintain. Don't make claims in areas where you have zero knowledge just because you think it helps your point.

I'm in a small sub-/ex-urban town with a rural character which has zoning, and have been involved in local issues. I've never met a single person who feels the way you claim (although there are surely a few examples somewhere). No one looks down on the low income ppl who are here because their families were here before housing started to get tight and expensive. Most everyone either grew up here or came specifically because they WANT to live in a quieter area, have some wildlife, maintain gardens, etc. No one is avoiding poor people, they are SEEKING quiet and green spaces where you can do outdoor activities.

Moreover, saying that zoning in locales like this should be changed to accommodate low-income high-density housing is just stupid. Yes, the current homeowners could get rich subdividing their properties, razing the trees and putting up condos. Great, maybe you get a lower-income population. But getting ANYWHERE useful from here, even groceries or convenience stores, is a 5-10 mile car ride, and the rail station to the big city is 25min away by car. Any low income person is now condemned to replace housing expenses with car expenses, purchase/lease, maintenance, insurance, fuel, etc.. And, they now have a big commute reducing their time available.

It is really simple to just blame other people and yell "they're just greedy!", and it surely makes you feel better and more righteous.

It is much harder to actually figure out complex problems and create solutions that work.

[sudosysgen]

The groceries and convenience stores and so on will naturally appear once density increases if they are allowed to. It's a non issue.

I'm sympathetic to your plight seeing the character of your neighborhood change if public housing is built, but society has to balance it against the plight of people who are forced to change their neighborhood due to poverty, and on the balance their plight is simply worse than yours.

Unlike them, in such a scenario, you get to sell your land whose value now increased and go somewhere else with similar attribute.

Any society that cannot make this obvious decision to inconvenience some to save others is doomed to failure.

[toss1]

Where we are talking about areas that are already almost entirely paved with sidewalks and minimal trees or yards, etc., then we agree — there's no environment to preserve — it is just the character of the human-only habitat. converting this from single-family postage stamp lots to high-rise apartments is in most cases a reasonable tradeoff.

But NO, you obviously do not understand, let alone have any sympathy for, preserving environment and habitat. It is not merely inconvenient, what you propose is death for everything from the insects, birds, flora, fauna, and 50-year-old endangered turtle living in the wetland behind my neighborhood. Paving paradise and putting up a parking lot is not a solution.

Beyond that, you are proposing to literally steal uncounted millions of dollars of built-up value. Everyone in this area has willingly paid large amounts of extra costs and far higher taxes to maintain its character, purchase lands for greenspace preservation, trails, etc. It is not mere inconvenience you are talking about, it is literally stealing all of that extra value, and handing it to the developers who will strip the land and put up (almost universally shitty quality) buildings and pavement. You need to compensate the residents who will be displaced, not merely hand their value over to the developers, destroy the habitat and "inconvenience" the current residents.

Moreover, even if grocery and convenience stores "popup" with demand, they will still require cars to get to for almost everyone. It also fails solve the problem of where will be the JOBS or any other supplies. Most things will still be a significant drive away, and you've just solved one problem (lower housing cost) to add another — the requirement to spend money on multiple automobiles per family. And the added pollution and resource usage.

Your problem is you think there is a single simple solution that applies everywhere. You are wrong.

In some cases, it is a great solution. In others, you are literally destroying everything to gain nothing, because you can't be bothered to think about it more deeply. Any society doing that is doomed to failure.

[fragmede]

> groceries and convenience stores and so on will naturally appear

I'm sorry, but that's not how that works. not if you really want it to happen. There's conversations between high level government officials and corporate execs to make things happen. negotiations are had, and contracts are signed. theres a city planning agency that has a CPC.

All of that is to say, there's entire industry just in the planning of cities. while we're building housing for the homeless, let's also engage them and build a viable town and start with that, and not just build the center square with hope and wishes. (Hope is not a strategy.)

[sudosysgen]

There is an entire industry for planning cities, yes. And public housing bypasses most of that industry.

It's just a simple fact that if you have a large population center, and market demand for it, basic things like grocery stores and convenience stores will pop up. Not every grocery store and convenience store is run by a large chain that negotiates with the government for a location, if you believe that's the case you are missing knowledge of that industry.

This isn't a hypothetical, things like this have been done. Just because we are overcomplicating it doesn't mean it has to be.

[toss1]

Yes, and even if they do magically popup, the grocery stores will STILL be a drive for everyone. And stores for every other supply, and the JOBS, will be a significant drive away.

So, you will have just condemned every poor person you transplanted to now buying, maintaining, and insuring an automobile or several for each family. A constantly depreciating asset. Which may well cost more than they saved in rent.

"Oh, just put in public transit", you'll say. Have you ever looked at any suburban/rural bus service? They only run infrequently, and often unreliably on time, and are so now the poor people must squander massive hours of their day just waiting on the busses, or configuring their schedule around the busses.

No one else is overcomplicating it. You are massively oversimplifying it, waving your hands about, and being very loud about proclaiming your virtuous non-solution. Stop it, and think more.

[marssaxman]

> Moreover, saying that zoning in locales like this should be changed to accommodate low-income high-density housing is just stupid.

It's a good thing I am not talking about locales like yours, then; unless your small town has a demographically-improbable homelessness problem, akin to the ones you see in big cities whose history of inadequate development due to strict zoning regulation has created a persistent housing crunch, nothing I said pertains to you.

> It is overwhelmingly exactly what people say it is — maintaining the character of a neighborhood that everyone there has paid higher cost of entry, cost of taxes, and cost and time of maintenance and upgrades to maintain.

You're not making this point of view sound any more appealing by defining "the character of a neighborhood" entirely in terms of money.

[toss1]

>>unless your small town has a demographically-improbable homelessness problem...nothing I said pertains to you.

Well, the current town has no homelessness problem, but there ARE most definitely laws in place (Massachusetts 40B) that specifically seeks to override local zoning and mandate low-income housing in ALL towns.

So, while we agree that what you said should not pertain to me, the people making the actual laws most definitely apply it to me.

I don't know why there is the disconnect, perhaps some misguided "it must apply to everyone everywhere" cop-out to avoid the actual complexity, but the fact is that the rhetoric is very destructive.

>>defining "the character of a neighborhood" entirely in terms of money.

The DEFINITION is "quiet, low traffic, wildlife, gardens, etc.".

The COST is defined in money as well as work.

The point is that those things are not free — they cost a lot of work and yes, money in both taxes and improvements and maintenance. More importantly, it is not cost-free to decide to destroy those valuable things. Especially when the result will not help the people you are intending to help.

[marssaxman]

Thank you for explaining your situation. I can see why that would be frustrating!

Here in Washington, the state legislature recently passed a law overriding any local zoning which would forbid multi-family housing, but the law does not apply to cities under 25K population, and its strongest provisions only apply above 75K. Oregon has had a similar law since 2019. This approach seems more reasonable to me.

[toss1]

Yes, those provisions in Oregon and Washington are certainly doing that better.

I had literally to take three weeks off to kill a proposed development literally in my back yard. It is a wetland habitat, so enjoys some protection from good Massachusetts environmental laws, but they can be overridden by 40B. It is also a hilly and inaccessable site, and the developer was proposing to raze the whole site and put in 300+ units of warehouse-type condos. They literally did not even have sufficient access for fire trucks because of the terrain, and would have eliminated the habitat of an endangered turtle (found by required survey/trap-releasing).

We dug hard into the laws and process, and rallied hundreds of neighbors and political influencers in town to literally make the most packed planning board hearing they ever had, but a factor of at least 10.

This ended up killing the project, for now. But the absurdity of blanket zoning overrides literally destroying highly valuable (and costly) environment to literally solve nothing except transferring some of that value to developer's pockets has not left me. I understand it is still sad to replace brownstones with 10' square garden plots out back with high-rises, but I'm fine with that, since there really isn't any wildlife habitat and there is infrastructure to move the new people around the city. I'm not fine with doing it everywhere, particularly where it will destroy habitat and where there is no good people-moving infrastructure.