[littlexsparkee]

The thing is homeowners benefit from denser zoning because the potential of their land is increased even if the average unit price comes down - also the amenity value of more jobs, amusements, school funding/tax base, etc in the city should show up in the price too.

[tptacek]

Homeowners definitely do not believe that their home prices benefit from denser zoning. (I'm a housing activist, very close to killing off SFZ in my muni, knock wood).

[bombcar]

Homeowners care less about their house prices than people realize - it's just a convenient excuse.

Most homeowners just don't want things to change.

[crooked-v]

Here in San Francisco, you just have to look on Nextdoor for two minutes to see droves of people coming up with absurd complaints about any and every case of new housing construction, up to and including literally photoshopping bad faith concept images of buildings to try and make projects look worse.

Housing prices only come up when people try to engage in bad faith gymnastics about how actually they only paid 200K for their two million dollar house so they're totally just ordinary middle class people with middle class concerns.

[tptacek]

I've spent kind of a lot of time talking directly to homeowners, and while I agree a general fear of change is one of the first principal components of this problem, housing price loss aversion is definitely a real thing.

[tzs]

I don't care much about price loss if it is happening everywhere, so if I ever want to move to another region selling my house here will pay for one there.

[jjav]

> fear of change is one of the first principal components of this problem

By describing it a "fear of change" you are assuming (I think) that the change is always good for everyone, people just "fear it" irrationally.

The reality is that most people choose where to buy a house based on some criteria of what they like and the lifestyle they want. Whatever it may be for them, but nearly everyone puts a huge amount of effort in considering what they want from a neighborhood and then try to find a matching location to buy a house.

If you come in and completely change the nature of the neighborhood, in a way that makes it incompatible with why they chose it, of course they'll hate it. You would too if it happens to you. Every human would, basic human nature.

[littlexsparkee]

It depends on what that factor is - cities change and the density, views, etc are not frozen for you at the time of your purchase. It's hard to understand why someone would think otherwise. There are plenty of planned communities, HOAs, etc that are much more likely to go unchanged that would seem to be a better fit for people like this.

[jjav]

> It's hard to understand why someone would think otherwise.

Think, or feel? Rationally, most people might realize that over the decades places will change.

Emotionally, if you put it a huge amount of effort and more money than you've ever spent (or ever will) on anything else and then someone comes in and changes everything about it that you originally loved, you will hate it. Basic undeniable human nature.

[bombcar]

Most people don't like loss ( | || || |_ ) but rarely is it really a case of potential loss (unless "density increase" is code for "build a maximum security prison next door") - it's just a case of slower appreciation.

[parineum]

It's not a convenience excuse, it's a strawman. It's easy to dismiss the strawman.

It's much harder to act like the good guy when you're talking about turning a quiet neighborhood into a much denser neighborhood where the kids can't walk to school anymore because there are too many cars.

I never understand why people are so eager to turn a neighborhood they don't live in into something else rather than move to any of the multitude of neighborhoods that are already like that.

[tptacek]

Because it's not OK to take the areas of highest economic opportunity and lock them up for incumbent homeowners with exclusive zoning. I focus on the neighborhood I do in fact live in, for what it's worth.

[hollerith]

The economic opportunities are not something in the soil, but rather effects of the laws governing the place and the people that chose to live and work there. It might not be possible to make the change you want without changing who wants to live and work there and reducing the economic opportunities.

[parineum]

I didn't say that. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue but the pro-density/change side rarely makes any kind of argument that I've ever heard from the other side. Instead, it's just painted like they're a bunch of greedy bastards.

Imagine if someone wanted to change all the streets in your neighborhood to only accomodate bicycles but you own a home in the center of the city and commute 20 miles to a town in another county for work.

[tptacek]

I didn't call anybody a bastard.

[littlexsparkee]

yes, this is true - getting discussed a bit in YIMBY circles but definitely not common knowledge. benefits to current owners should be a topic of research and outreach.

[KingMachiavelli]

Sure but homeowners can literally have their cake and eat it too. Homeowners who like where they live and don’t want to sell are best served by scarcity.

Unfortunately that means they can play both cards, they can benefit from scarcity while pretending to be anti-gentrification. And they can claim any pro-housing group is actually “pro scary capitalist developer”.