Not In My Backyard: are zoning codes CRONY CAPITALISM? (also SF sucks)
Just saw an article about an ongoing battle between a startup that wants to create a tiny house complex on a vacant lot in Wichita, and neighborhood residents who don't want the development nearby because it will likely cause a slight decrease in property values.
To me, this is emblematic of a much bigger problem, which is found on display in cities like Seattle and San Francisco with their lack of affordable housing and growing homeless population. Large developers often push for complex zoning and building codes that create barriers to entry for smaller competitors and prevents them from competing. To me, this sounds just like crony capitalism..
When they were created, zoning laws made sense - you don’t want a coal factory next to a family neighborhood. Nowadays, however, zoning codes, just seem like a tool of protectionism supported by NIMBY owners of single use family homes to keep affordable apartments or “undesirable” developments away from their neighborhoods. These faux “progressives” really only care about their property values.
Obviously, there's a ton more factors in play, like skewed supply and demand because of new tech jobs, rent control laws, and even laws mandating a certain number of free parking spaces etc. However, I think that by moving towards more laissez faire zoning laws, more high-density and affordable units could be constructed and cities like SF would be much better off. When I was there last month, I saw a homeless guy in SoMa defecating in the street. Truly a paradise!
What do you all think? Are zoning laws outdated? Is NIMBYism killing cities? Shouldn’t the market sort it out? Would definitely like to get insight from fellow monkeys who are experienced in real estate.
Avocado
Avocado
I'm not in RE but it's clear if you look at the major cities of the world, of which for example LA and SF purport to be, there aren't single family homes in the financial district. SF needs to look more like New York, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Shanghai, HK, Singapore etc. Shortest building should be 7 stories with mixed-use at the ground level, and adequate public green space to compensate. Suburbia should be accessible by mass transit but not in the CBD.
"Live-Work-Play" has been championed by architects and city planners for decades in new communities, but the problem is that nothing new is being built so none of these principles get implemented.
I do agree that SF is a hellhole. However, transitioning to a laissez-faire zoning system would not necessarily solve any problem. Coming from RE background, I learned early on that the cost of developing your basic apartment complex vs high-end ones is not much different. With CA ridiculously low cap rate, there is simply no incentive to build affordable housing unless you can work out some kind of tax credit/deduction with local government. One good thing is trouble is brewing in the California Real Estate market. Rising interest rate will cause the RE market to explode because the CAP rate is so low (3%-5%) and there is less demand for existing homes and new homes.
this is really interesting and also unbelievably sad
No, no. You're buying the affordable housing propaganda hook, line and sinker. Achieving true home affordability is NOT about building lower-end housing or using gov't programs. It's about a long-term, generational dedication to matching supply to demand. The immutable law of real estate is that what is today's brand new luxury building is tomorrow's Class B middle class housing. Building luxury units today may not achieve material home affordability immediately, but it WILL work toward that goal long-term.
But is the real estate market so fucked up in California at the moment that only government subsidized apartments are feasible?
As a general rule, there are two kinds of liberals: 1) the liberals who are liberal because they truly care about the plight of the downtrodden; 2) misanthropes who generally dislike or hate humanity and embrace many progressive causes to assuage their guilt for being such an ass in their everyday life. You see this play out in how cities are run.
There's a middle ground between NIMBYism always winning and there being no zoning laws; however, if a person is a true blue, honest-to-god progressive liberal who genuinely cares about the plight of the common man, then one is morally obligated to take the path of Houston (run by liberals) rather than the path taken by San Francisco (also run by liberals). Houston is extraordinarily affordable; San Francisco is a miserable existence for anyone who isn't a high earner. Houston is probably run--at least by my guess--by #1 liberals while San Francisco is run--almost certainly--by #2 liberals.
So, for me, I don't see this as a partisan issue--I see it as a moral issue. And just as an observation, conservatives can by NIMBYs, too.
Houston by your observation seems to be a more pleasant place where liberalism is practiced correctly similar to that of the LBJ era. I never had the pleasure to see #1 Liberals for myself, must be nice.
I don't think you can make that kind of sweeping generalization. I know very little about SF zoning, but I know a lot about the history of NYC zoning, and for the most part it isn't limousine liberals trying to protect their home values under the disguise of virtue signaling.
As far as Houston goes in particular, I don't think its fair either to compare it to a place like San Francisco, which is far more heavily urbanised than the very suburban Houston (something like 5x more densely populated). I guess there is a separate argument to be made about urban sprawl, but there is just less space in the Bay Area than in the Houston metro area. Of course it's cheaper, because you can always build shitty product further out rather than redevelop within the city center, which is of course what happens.
As a lifelong resident of a dark blue area who is a graduate of the affordable housing industrial complex, I'm entitled to make any generalization I want based on my experiences. I don't need your permission. Your experiences in NYC mean nothing to me.
In my down time at work I've read up a lot on this issue, but take my opinion with a grain of salt since I generally support uber-dense urban areas over suburban sprawl.
I think reducing zoning restrictions is useful, especially in cities like SF where housing stock is in such short supply. However, I would like to see these zoning laws create more available land for multi-unit buildings (luxury or mid-level apartments others have mentioned). What I don't want to see in many cities is the haphazard suburban sprawl that Houston experiences. This has caused Houston to be one of the largest cities by land sprawl.
I think misguided zoning laws are the problem here, not zoning laws themselves. Then again, zoning laws are a product of the people running the city, so that makes a lot of sense.
Vero laudantium non doloremque accusantium corporis. Consequuntur aliquam ut dolorem est qui labore. Sit maxime est nesciunt et saepe aspernatur cumque.
Officiis ea natus rerum. Ipsam similique excepturi omnis voluptate. Dicta nihil velit eligendi voluptatem. Dolorem distinctio pariatur occaecati quos eos est suscipit explicabo. Amet ut provident voluptatem dolorem adipisci.
Asperiores corporis eum aut maiores qui ut. Consequatur quisquam error maxime necessitatibus corporis fuga. Distinctio recusandae sequi quia nemo nisi quia. Aut sed laboriosam est expedita esse nostrum modi. Distinctio et pariatur omnis et consequuntur doloribus voluptatem. Sunt tempore quis suscipit inventore non. Nostrum a architecto id odio.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...