Nice article about how zoning and NIMBYism are fueling inequality and economic stagnation (NY Times, 7/3/16)

Discussion
1

This New York Times piece features the kind of analysis that I think is getting left-leaning folks on board with fighting for more economic freedom, at least within a limited scope, via groups like the SF Bay Area Renters Federation (SFBARF.org):

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-sentiment-reflected-in-zoning-laws-thwarts-equality.html

   I recently spoke on property rights at a YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) conference, not so coincidentally in Boulder, Colorado – which was attended by the Times' reporter, who also included me and a couple mentions of the L-word in a previous Times piece he wrote on SFBARF and its founder Sonja Trauss – and was heartened to see that the appeal of groups like SFBARF that generally seek more sanity on land use to young, otherwise left-leaning residents does not appear to be limited to San Francisco. It's a dynamic that makes YIMBYism an excellent cause for libertarians to support, imho.

Love & Liberty,
                                                       ((( starchild )))
           At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (2016-2018)
At-Large Alternate, Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee (2016-2017)
                                             RealReform@earthlink.net
                                                      (415) 625-FREE

“You don’t want rules made entirely for people that have something, at the expense of people who don’t.”
– Jason Furman, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, quoted in the article linked above

2

Huuummmmm.... here is another nice article

http://sandiego.urbdezine.com/2016/07/02/california-governor-brown-affordable-housing-bad-planning/

Governor Brown's proposal is a trailer bill, tacked on to the 2016-2017 budget, called Streamlining Affordable Housing, emphasis on "affordable" which we libertarians call "subsidized." Tax-payer subsidized housing is the only way folks at the lower end of the income scale are going to be able to live in upscale cities like San Francisco. There is no mathematical way that I can see that we can stack and pack enough non-subsidized housing to significantly bring prices down without experiencing an out-migration as crowding chases residents away.

Also, the bill refers to multi-family housing in places (for now) zoned for such, which in places like Marin is just about zero. Also the bill refers to the Obama executive order of last year Affirmatively Furthering Affordable Housing, which is an abomination of the highest degree.

Marcy

3

Serious out-migration is already happening here Marcy – haven't you been seeing all the news items about this!? I could be wrong, but I rather doubt that the tradeoff of having lower housing prices and more residents would cause more people to leave due to "overcrowding" than are being forced out now by the high prices and high rents.

  More importantly though, the less housing supply there is to meet demand, the higher prices will be (and the more homelessness there will be). And the higher that housing prices go, the more demands there will be for government housing subsidies and the more likely such legislation will be to pass.

  Governor Brown's proposal (described in the article you linked), while an incremental step toward allowing more housing that certainly falls far short of what ought to be done, seems positive to me from a libertarian perspective. It simply gives developers an additional option to get their projects built without having to jump through as many government regulatory hoops, if they are willing to meet certain affordability conditions. Local governments and NIMBYs have no right to violate property rights by disapproving developments that other people want to build on their own land in the first place, so having more options to get them approved more easily is a good thing.

  Of course the language calling it "by right" is sort of oxymoronic, since something that is a right (such as being able to build without being subjected to public hearings and vetoes by city local government planners) should not have any conditions attached.

  Zoning reform is definitely needed in Marin, no question about that!

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

4

The serious current out migration is called the market, responding to the mess that tax brakes to corporations and housing subsidies have caused.
One should be aware that developers are not going to eat what they are told to shell out in subsidies; it gets tacked on to sale prices and rents which either the private market or taxpayers pay. Unless price controls are tightened even more, and we have a bigger mess.

Zoning promoted by YIMBIS does not work any better than that promoted by NYMBIS. In the end people who can afford it go to places they are comfortable in, and people who cannot are stuck in crumbling neighborhoods with lots of subsidized housing and no tax base.

The market always wins.

Marcy

  Serious out-migration is already happening here Marcy – haven't you been seeing all the news items about this!? I could be wrong, but I rather doubt that the tradeoff of having lower housing prices and more residents would cause more people to leave due to "overcrowding" than are being forced out now by the high prices and high rents.

  More importantly though, the less housing supply there is to meet demand, the higher prices will be (and the more homelessness there will be). And the higher that housing prices go, the more demands there will be for government housing subsidies and the more likely such legislation will be to pass.

  Governor Brown's proposal (described in the article you linked), while an incremental step toward allowing more housing that certainly falls far short of what ought to be done, seems positive to me from a libertarian perspective. It simply gives developers an additional option to get their projects built without having to jump through as many government regulatory hoops, if they are willing to meet certain affordability conditions. Local governments and NIMBYs have no right to violate property rights by disapproving developments that other people want to build on their own land in the first place, so having more options to get them approved more easily is a good thing.

  Of course the language calling it "by right" is sort of oxymoronic, since something that is a right (such as being able to build without being subjected to public hearings and vetoes by city local government planners) should not have any conditions attached.

  Zoning reform is definitely needed in Marin, no question about that!

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

5

Hypothetical out-migration due to perceived overcrowding would also be a result of the market – more so than the current out-migration actually, because the root cause of current out-migration resulting from an expensive housing market are the government regulations that make it difficult and expensive to build housing, whereas more housing being built is what would happen naturally in market conditions. Historically (prior to government land use controls), cities have tended to be places of high population density. Look at just about any charming old city with its warrens of narrow streets. Zoning promoted by YIMBYs? Where is this happening? YIMBYs are generally trying to loosen government zoning restrictions on land use, not tighten them.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

6

FWIW, here's an example of the alternate narrative on the high cost of housing (what the left's economic statists such as the former Bay Guardian folks are arguing):

48 HILLS: The deep roots of SF’s housing crisis
http://www.48hills.org/2016/03/23/11474/
Berkeley professor explains that it's not about Nimbys, it's about capital markets, speculation, too much demand, and income inequality.
And he argues, correctly, that the housing crisis has more to do with speculation, finance, and economic inequality than with any claim that cities like San Francisco are too slow to build housing.
But developers are profit-seekers, so don’t expect them to be innocent bearers of what people need. It is absolutely necessary to question developers and city planners over what is to be built, how high, how big, and where. A livable city demands good design, historic preservation, neighborhood protections, mixed use, and social diversity, among other things, and figuring out what those things are should be a collective, democratic and, yes, conflictual process of politics and public debate.

  They recognize that the opposition to NIMBYism is at heart a critique of big government and a call for a more market-oriented approach, and they don't like it. Thus their efforts to shift the blame to villains like capitalism, speculation, and evil developers instead.

Love & Liberty,
                              ((( starchild )))

7

I have absolutely zero problem with letting the market, responding to demand, build all it wants to. What I am viewing as a mess are the subsidies. If there were no zoning or subsidies at all, and market demand called for a 90 story condo building in St Francis Woods, I would say fine. If the current residents did not like the crowding they would move.

48 Hills are funny. They hate the past NYMBY reign and love "neighborhood character," but I wonder how long it would take them to jump for joy if, say, the Monster in the Mission were 100% subsidized housing.

Marcy

  FWIW, here's an example of the alternate narrative on the high cost of housing (what the left's economic statists such as the former Bay Guardian folks are arguing):

48 HILLS: The deep roots of SF’s housing crisis
http://www.48hills.org/2016/03/23/11474/
Berkeley professor explains that it's not about Nimbys, it's about capital markets, speculation, too much demand, and income inequality.
And he argues, correctly, that the housing crisis has more to do with speculation, finance, and economic inequality than with any claim that cities like San Francisco are too slow to build housing.
But developers are profit-seekers, so don’t expect them to be innocent bearers of what people need. It is absolutely necessary to question developers and city planners over what is to be built, how high, how big, and where. A livable city demands good design, historic preservation, neighborhood protections, mixed use, and social diversity, among other things, and figuring out what those things are should be a collective, democratic and, yes, conflictual process of politics and public debate.

  They recognize that the opposition to NIMBYism is at heart a critique of big government and a call for a more market-oriented approach, and they don't like it. Thus their efforts to shift the blame to villains like capitalism, speculation, and evil developers instead.

Love & Liberty,
                              ((( starchild )))