A friend asked about what specific policies are implied by this kind of collective action problem. My instinct was something at the state level that would either incentivize localities to build more housing or take away localities' power to obstruct new housing. And later I discovered this piece, which discusses the New York housing compact, California allowing duplexes, and Oregon banning requirements for single family homes: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/wealthy-liberal-suburbs-economic-segregation-scarsdale/674792/
I asked a housing developer in LA once about this local NIMBYs problem and he basically just said "you have to take the decision about how much housing is allowed out city and county hands."
Something that ppl seem to overlook sometimes is that NIMBY-ism is not just, like, a set of behaviors arising from racism or aesthetic preferences (altho def those things too). Homeowners have dumped a ton of their wealth into this one asset (their house). If more housing gets built around them, that will
1. increase local housing supply, potentially slowing the growth in the value of their biggest financial asset (again, their house), and
2. increase the number of people drawing on local gov't services. if the new housing units are smaller and cheaper than the existing ones, and the newcomers have school-age children, that may necessitate higher local property taxes. and those higher local taxes will be capitalized into lower relative home values. which, again, lowers the relative value of the existing homes.
A friend asked about what specific policies are implied by this kind of collective action problem. My instinct was something at the state level that would either incentivize localities to build more housing or take away localities' power to obstruct new housing. And later I discovered this piece, which discusses the New York housing compact, California allowing duplexes, and Oregon banning requirements for single family homes: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/wealthy-liberal-suburbs-economic-segregation-scarsdale/674792/
Have you been following any of this "builder's remedy" stuff in California: https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/06/california-builders-remedy/
I asked a housing developer in LA once about this local NIMBYs problem and he basically just said "you have to take the decision about how much housing is allowed out city and county hands."
Seems like he was basically right.
Also have you read this law review article: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/review/homes-rule
Something that ppl seem to overlook sometimes is that NIMBY-ism is not just, like, a set of behaviors arising from racism or aesthetic preferences (altho def those things too). Homeowners have dumped a ton of their wealth into this one asset (their house). If more housing gets built around them, that will
1. increase local housing supply, potentially slowing the growth in the value of their biggest financial asset (again, their house), and
2. increase the number of people drawing on local gov't services. if the new housing units are smaller and cheaper than the existing ones, and the newcomers have school-age children, that may necessitate higher local property taxes. and those higher local taxes will be capitalized into lower relative home values. which, again, lowers the relative value of the existing homes.
anyway US housing policy is whack