My two-part mantra for making sense of NIMBYism and other failures of housing policy. 1. 80% of voters are homeowners. 2. Homeowners hear "affordability" and think "my property value." Unfortunately, some days it seems as simple as that.
-
-
Replying to @JedKolko @kimmaicutler
Where else do cities accommodate rapid economic growth and resident diversity?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So, for example, Beverly Hills doesn’t advocate for affordable housing because there’s a thriving film industry a few miles away. Would-be ingenues are moving from across the world congesting the city and bidding up housing costs, are expected to figure it out.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Not NIMBY at all just trying to understand the other side of the argument. SF is an old city with a rich history. If homeowners *like* this about SF they should fight to keep it. Why should they care about economic growth? How has tech made what they believe SF to be better?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @david_doswell @kimmaicutler
I think this often goes to the political or philosophical question of who decides. People who can't afford to move to SF are affected by SF policies -- and SF policies affect neighboring housing markets. So should SF policy be a city decision? Region? State? National?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Why wouldn’t property owners say what goes in their neighborhood? Are local taxes paying for wings on residential homes or fixing curbs in driveways? Is it controversial to say renters don’t have rights? Why? In every aspect of life this is understood.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You also, presumably, wouldn’t live in a place you could no longer afford unless you assessed the opportunity costs were affordable. Yet— if it’s true that NIMBYs are playing a game with affordable housing to get the public to turn on tech they’re sick and putrid.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @david_doswell @JedKolko
It's really complicated. Basically the current system isn't financially sustainable between Prop. 13 and pension liabilities, so cities are in a position where they need to attract business to compensate for the difference. But business' benefits
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
are 1) not equitably distributed in wages and 2) disproportionately captured (again) by the same homeowners/landowners because of Prop. 13. They love to complain about industry even though it keeps their property tax basis low and home equity high.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @JedKolko
This is a perfect explanation and one I’ve been waiting to hear! I think
@micsolana told me something similar a few months ago. Cunning. So they need the very industry they are also game theoretically forced to oppose. Huh.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @david_doswell @kimmaicutler and
Apparently, this is also super unpopular among politicians, which may also explain why they are dragging their feet on increasing the tax rate even a half of a percent.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.