70
[article] Opinion: Making housing more affordable means your home’s value is going to have to come down
(www.theglobeandmail.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
70 points (98.6% liked)
Yes in my backyard!
326 readers
1 users here now
In this community, we believe in saying yes to:
- Housing
- Density
- Public transit
- Renewable energy
- Alternatives to cars
Typical YIMBY policies include:
- Elimination of restrictive zoning
- Elimination of parking minimums, setback requirements, and other arbitrary density-decreasing deed restrictions
- Elimination of Euclidean zoning
- Elimination of "inclusionary" zoning
- Elimination of undue red tape that gets in the way of new housing and transit development
- Establishment of stronger "by right" development
- Replacement of property taxes with land value taxes (LVT)
- Construction of high-quality public transit w/ transit-oriented development
- Road diets, with more space dedicated to bikes and pedestrians and less to driving and parking
Typical housing crisis "solutions" YIMBYs are wary of:
- Scapegoating immigrants
- Scapegoating airbnb
- Scapegoating "foreign investors"
- Scapegoating "greedy developers"
YIMBYism transcends the typical left-right political divide; please be respectful of fellow YIMBYs with differing political views. That said, please report anyone saying anything hateful or bigoted.
Reading List
- Housing Breaks People’s Brains
- The Problem With Everything-Bagel Liberalism
- Housing Constraints and Spatial Misallocation
- An Airbnb collapse won’t fix America’s housing shortage
- Cities Start to Question an American Ideal: A House With a Yard on Every Lot
- More Flexible Zoning Helps Contain Rising Rents
- Constraints on City and Neighborhood Growth: The Central Role of Housing Supply
- Progressive Cities Aren't Living Up To Their Values
- Local Effects of Large New Apartment Buildings in Low-Income Areas
- The Origins of Inequality, and Policies to Contain It
- Progress and Poverty
Viewing List
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let's try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn't fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Additionally, it is preferred (although not mandatory) to post a brief submission statement in the body of link posts. This is just to give a brief summary and/or description of why you think it's relevant here. Hopefully this will encourage more discussion in this community.
Recommended Communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's really not that simple, if you own a single family home in an area that is increasing density, that lot does not necessarily decrease in value. And it's still more nuanced in less dense areas, which is not the majority of housing.
It's also not a zero sum game, there are millions of people who would like to move out of their parents but can't afford to, population is increasing, and who know how many other factors.
Flatly saying that home values have to go down isn't necessarily true, it depends on the exact mechanism used to increase affordability.
Fun little side thought, there was a study that came out a while ago in Maine that stated that the average resident spent around $10k personally on cars, and another $10k in government spending.
Designing an area without requiring cars by increasing density, means that for everyone who can ditch a car on average they'd save $800 a month, some of which could be spent on housing.
Increasing affordability doesn't even necessitate lower prices per units if your population has more money to spend.
This is a lot more nuance than the average person is likely to accept, so it is easier for a politician to just dodge the question and avoid pissing off either side.
The car thing makes logical sense at least, the idea that another expense would be removed as a result of dense housing, but that extra money would be spread across everything those people might want to pay for and not have much effect on housing demand. The rest of the things mentioned seem like variables that are independent of housing supply, and wouldn't affect whether increasing housing supply suppresses price (it does) (that's the whole reason to do it in the first place) (supply and demand is real).