Comment by lmm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lmm | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> That should naturally happen in every democratic, rich society unless it's population plummets right? How do you fix it without "fixing" "rich" or "democratic"?

It will hopefully self-correct as we reach a stage where more than 50% of the voting population can't afford to own a home, which is happening now in the UK. Going to be unpleasant for the people holding the bag when the bubble pops though.

> If you remove "democratic", there will be no NIMBYsm because no one will give a damn what people living in the area want - developers will built as much housing as people will be willing to buy, flooding the market, and prices will fall. Problem "solved".

I don't see NIMBYism as a truly democratic result - rather it's an artifact of our imperfect democracy where only those who can afford to have a registered address in a particular region get to vote there, regardless of how much time they spend there or how much tax they're paying that's spent in that region. There have got to be better ways to get accountability than local vetoes.

In practice, the people that block new housing in the neighbourhood are a handful of crotchety retirees that go to the community meeting and raise a fuss. Most people can’t do that because they have more important things to do all day.

But we know the very vocal opposers don’t represent the true majority because of polling on the issue. For example most people in the Bay Area want to see more construction. And the younger people are and the more they rent, the more in favor they are of it.

> the people that block new housing in the neighbourhood are a a handful of crotchety retirees that go to the community meeting

In suburbs, yes. In cities, it's often misinformed tenants.

Why won't they afford to own a home? Is the population skyrocketing suddenly anywhere in the Western nations apart from Israel? They already own one. They could pass houses down to their children.

And yes, zoning and NIMBYsm exists only as long as (slightly) more than 50% of people are satisfied with their housing situation (and thus want prices to grow to fund their retirement), as slightly less than 50% are not (and thus want prices to fall to be able to afford to buy). This equilibrium will of course, self-preserve because zoning rules are not national but change based on locality, so there won't be a single nationwide crash anywhere.

> Why won't they afford to own a home? Is the population skyrocketing suddenly anywhere in the Western nations apart from Israel? They already own one.

Lifespans are increasing, and people expect/insist on living alone more. And while population may not be "skyrocketing", it's increasing.

> This equilibrium will of course, self-preserve because zoning rules are not national but change based on locality, so there won't be a single nationwide crash anywhere.

A big enough change in a local area will become a national crash easily enough - we've seen that before (particularly in the UK where London alone is something like 20% of the housing market by value). Couple that with the fact that the same demographic changes are happening in most places - housing prices have been rising since the '50s and it's going to boil over at a similar time everywhere. And since policies and politics move slowly, we can't count on a smooth transition - more likely there will be an overhang and increasing pressure to do something (indeed there already have been - but the current generation of short-termist politicians naturally responded with misguided policies like "affordable housing" requirements that have only reduced housing affordability) until the problem can't be ignored, and then a crash and perhaps even an overcorrection.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com