[pydry]

nimbyism is a perfectly rational market behavior when land is untaxed - as it was with, say, prop 13.

Why on earth would you want your local "historic" San francisco launderette to be turned into apartments? New supply will hurt the resale value of your apartment.

nimbys behaving in a rational way are a nicer target than, say, the Howard Jarvis taxpayers foundation. That one is backed by fine, upstanding billionaires and not filthy middle class homeowners. We all know who is "really" to blame for all of this and it is not the billionaires who set the rules of the game, it is those who play it.

[HDThoreaun]

NIMBYism is even more rational when there is a land tax. When things get built near your land your tax burden will increase. Your example doesn’t work because getting rid of the laundromat will make the area more desirable and increase property value even if new housing is built.

[pydry]

getting rid of the SF laundromat had no impact on the area's desirability. it simply increased the supply of apartments to live in the area.

if your property's value remains unaffected by the supply of properties nearby you will be indifferent to it. in fact, if it's desirable not to you but to others you will be inclined to yield it because your tax bill jumped.

[HDThoreaun]

> getting rid of the SF laundromat had no impact on the area's desirability.

I think this is a crazy take. Why do some areas become more valuable? Clearly it is because dilapidated amenities leave and in demand ones move in. Removing the laundromat was textbook gentrification. New housing is itself an amenity and it also brings people with money who will support and grow other nearby amenities which increases desirability.

[pydry]

I believe it's common knowledge that SF got popular for reasons that are entirely unrelated to its redevelopment of historic laundromats.