NIMBYs Are Not Selfish | Hacker News Reader

NIMBYs Are Not Selfish

theguardian.com

7 pointspharmakom11 comments

> But the narrative is of course nonsense. The crisis in housing is not of capacity but of affordability

I’m baffled by people who believe the law of supply and demand doesn’t apply to housing.

Or those who talk about supply and the need for environmental deregulation to stimulate supply but never consider questions about what exactly is driving demand (hint: it’s not increasing birth rates), before you give up on environmental impact protections.

> > Such houses, the wrong houses on the wrong sites, won’t bring prices down.

They even openly state that certain types of houses are immune to the law of supply and demand.

There’s a few issues in this article but two big ones. increased supply is actually good no matter what the size, too many 4 beds? Drives down the price of 4 beds, 3 beds get cheaper to compensate etc. It’s actually much better than the alternative which is often to build hovels, or to split a four bed into 4 extortionately priced flats.

Secondly the whole point of nimby is “my backyard”, how important is that black poplar really? It’s not. If it were 5 miles down the road the residents wouldn’t care. They don’t vote green, they all support more house building elsewhere at almost any cost.

Developers are often terrible, but it’s a government policy created issue that housing is terrible in the uk.

> Outside urban areas, the vast majority of houses being built are four- to five-bedroom executive-style housing on greenfield sites: completely out of the reach of first-time buyers or those on council waiting lists.

1. Is it really the case? I don't expect developers to build something they cannot sell.

2. If someone buys such houses they are probably moving out from cheaper houses/flats which become available on market.

Unless houses stay empty (e. g. as an investment or a vacation house used for a fraction of a year) any new development should help to alleviate housing crisis.

> 1. Is it really the case? I don't expect developers to build something they cannot sell

The main scenario I can imagine is if builders are operating psychotically, due to external incentives (corruption, poorly incentivized regulations, inability to build in more optimal locations/configurations)

Alternatively the price/cost ratio for luxury homes greatly exceeds lower-cost homes (and a single luxury unit probably takes longer to build than x low-cost homes, so it doesn’t free up as much supply as you might hope). But you’d also expect such a market gap to be immediately identified and exploited.

But yeah you’d normally expect construction to be self-correcting, because they want to get paid.

> The main scenario I can imagine is if builders are operating psychotically, due to external incentives (corruption, poorly incentivized regulations, inability to build in more optimal locations/configurations)

Yeah, I suspect regulations play a role. There seems to be a lot of weird (IMHO) regulations when building new homes in the US. Size of house/yard, number of parking lots, size of road, et.c. This probably removes the variability for the developers.

Note: I am not American nor a housing expert, so I might be talking out of my arse.

Most housing developments in the UK require a certain number of 'low income' housing. These are normally smaller houses which are either sold to low income people or the local government (who them rent them)

I'd love to see a better policy around making new housing developments require better public transport routes or space for shops/offices. The vast majority of the newer estates around me (North Scotland) require a car or a rather long walk just to get to a shop.

> Such houses, the wrong houses on the wrong sites, won’t bring prices down.

Yea i don't quite understand how that be.

Your comment seems reasonable to me but is down-voted here. So i guess we are missing something here.

NIMBYs often advocate for building “out” rather than “up”, either explicitly or by omission (saying not to build any housing results in this; people need housing somewhere).

It results in sprawl, car dependence, inefficiency, reduced access to jobs/retail/parks. Regardless of intention, selfish or not, I can’t imagine worse results for the environment and our cities.

It strikes me that this is from the Guardian and I know nothing about UK housing policy. Is anyone here able to comment on any relevant differences between the UK and US when it comes to housing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com