Hacker News Reader

Comment by woah | Hacker News Reader

A popular view in the YIMBY community is that restrictive zoning and other policies that limit housing are pushed by homeowners who are benefitting from a housing shortage, in some kind of long-range Machiavellian conspiracy to alter macroeconomics in their favor. But this doesn't really hold up when you think about it.

Restrictions on housing expansion are generally very local, with projects being blocked on the municipal level, or on the neighborhood level. But actually, more housing in a neighborhood would tend to benefit homeowners there. As the neighborhood becomes denser, rents might go down, but land values will go up, since a given piece of land can now be used to build a more profitable apartment building.

What is really blocking housing is simply aesthetics, misguided economic and political beliefs, and fear of change.

View on HN

I agree that the motivating issue at the very local level is probably less finances and more the impact of having more housing: aesthetics, parking impacts, noise, increased crowding for local resources (parks/schools/libraries/etc), not wanting lower income people in your neighborhood*, etc.

But it should be noted that while what you say about land is probably true, many landowners are also landlords, and it benefits them for the rent to be higher.

* Yes, this one is real. I've even seen people here fully admit to it, though it makes you look rather classist and unreasonable, so most people aren't gonna say it out loud.

> As the neighborhood becomes denser, rents might go down, but land values will go up, since a given piece of land can now be used to build a more profitable apartment building.

You're taking about the wholesale destruction of neighborhoods, as they are, to be replaced with something else. The land value might go up, but the existing house value goes down, especially halfway through such a project. It's one thing if you're replacing low density multitenant buildings with higher-density ones, but it's a totally different story if you're replacing detached, single family homes. Usually the latter only happens after a decade or 3 of neglected, low value homes.

Higher density brings pluses and minuses.. more businesses, transit and other services, but also more traffic, crime, noise, etc.

I suspect fear of change is a big part of it, people choose where they want to live then want it to stay exactly like that forever.

Another big part is people not wanting the poors in their neighborhood. The more exclusive it is, the better.

> A popular view in the YIMBY community is that restrictive zoning and other policies that limit housing are pushed by homeowners who are benefitting from a housing shortage, in some kind of long-range Machiavellian conspiracy to alter macroeconomics in their favor. But this doesn't really hold up when you think about it.

> Restrictions on housing expansion are generally very local, with projects being blocked on the municipal level, or on the neighborhood level. But actually, more housing in a neighborhood would tend to benefit homeowners there.

I think that "restrictive zoning ... [is] pushed by homeowners" and "actually, more housing in a neighborhood would tend to benefit homeowners there" can both be true. Arguing that someone would be acting counter to their interests by supporting a policy doesn't mean that they don't support it!

You just have to look at the Trump tariffs to see that lots of people will vote entirely against their own rational interests just because of vibes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com