- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/19212604
Paywall removed: https://archive.is/DIorS
You must log in or register to comment.
In-city land owning GenX here: YIMBY through and through. Been fighting for it at the city level for decades now.
I hate how stupid and short sighted so many people are. Selfishness has destroyed our cities, gutted our neighborhoods, and given our cities over to monopolies by driving out small and medium businesses. Cities and neighborhoods cannot be kept in amber. They either grow and adapt or they die.
Let’s start building our city core through dense housing, removing automobiles (they don’t make cities better, and they certainly destroy them), and making places for people instead of asphalt wastelands.
I think the thing that would help the most would be to get rid of single family only zoning. That should result in a lot more, higher density housing being built. However, that’s not going to bring down the price of single family homes. In fact, it would probably make them more expensive. Maybe not everyone would think that’s such a good thing, but it’s absolutely necessary if we want to reduce car dependency.
It honestly might bring down the price of single family homes, just not in cities.
One reason the suburbs even exist is that there isn’t space in the city for everyone. Many suburban families would rather live downtown but cannot as they do not have the mega millions to own a 3br condo.
One reason the suburbs even exist is that there isn’t space in the city for everyone. Many suburban families would rather live downtown but cannot as they do not have the mega millions to own a 3br condo.
But I think the reason there isn’t space for everyone in many cities is because a large percentage, or even a majority of the land in many cities is zoned for single family only, even very near downtown areas. I think parking requirements have a lot to do with it as well, since they result in parking lots being built where condos, or other multifamily housing could be built. Theoretically if you get rid of single family only zoning and the parking requirements, more housing units could be built, even larger units, increasing their supply relative to the demand, thus bringing down the per unit price.
But maybe that theory is flawed. Maybe the problem goes deeper than zoning and parking requirements. A lot of these real estate developments are investments, and investors have an incentive to not build so much housing that the per unit price goes down significantly. Some people might argue that developers and investors could make up for lower per unit prices in volume, but that’s only true if they are large enough and have capital resources to produce at that higher volume, which might be fine for very large developers and investment companies, but not for smaller ones. Plus, large or small, why try to make money selling or renting more units at a lower per unit price when you can make the same amount of money selling or renting fewer units at a higher per unit price?
Sorry if my previous comment wasn’t clear: I was agreeing with you but saying SFH would be more expensive in cities because it would represent lucrative development land and that would be part of the price.
As for the developer / investor incentives: I don’t think that’s a big issue. Sure some developers who intend to own afterwards will be disincentivized but plenty of people built with the goal of selling immediately, and making it cheaper and easier to build and sell will make those kinds of developers winners in the market.
We’d want robust regulations around building quality (soundproof your goddamn walls and floors) but all the red tape around other homeowners complaining about how big your apartment building is should be dropped.
Anything under 7 stories should be green lit if it meets safety and quality regulation.
This will also massively help cut down on gentrification.
What a bunch of BS. Kamala Harris is pushing rent control – the complete opposite of Yimby.
If your defining yimby as a synonym for pro-developer then yeah I guess. If your defining yimby as just opposed to Nimbys and their exclusionary zoning policies like single family housing, parking minimums, etc. to keep there property values up then rent control is fine as it’s not Nimbys but working class people pushing for it, not to restrict supply but to just stay in there homes.
Yimbyism can be an effective political strategy if you keep it contained to attacking rich property owners on behalf of the working/renting class. If you start opposing things like rent control that helps large portions of renters who stay in a place long term then the movement falls apart in infighting.
Yimby is about removing the red-tape that prevents development. There is no bigger red-tape than rent-control. Even if all other restrictions, such as SFH zoning, were removed it wouldn’t matter because nobody will build in areas with rent control.
Except in all the countries with rent control where people still build houses?
If you own more than 10 properties or for corporate ownership is when this applies.
Is a better way to manage collusion and a few corporations cornering rental markets.Has nothing to do with the number of properties. The rule would apply to any owner having at least 50 units under management. A single mid-sized apartment building might qualify.
Well, I’m not really sorry for “small landlords owning small buildings” of 50 or more units under management.
That’s not small by any measure and totally against YIMBY.
