No, I don't think Coca Cola is a necessity. But the author of the piece you shared might argue that living in an expensive city isn't a necessity either. What's your view?
-
In recent years, the median SFBA home has risen in value by **more than the median household income.** Developers want to build; NIMBYs want to prevent it so they can continue enriching themselves without creating value at the cost of everyone else, including the broader economy.
My argument is that it is indeed deeply antisocial to use political sway to restrict the supply of a basic good required by newcomers to participate in the best economic opportunities in order to enrich oneself without creating anything. NIMBYism doesn't manifest in a vacuum.
-
-
I agree. I'm curious - how far do you think this sort of utilitarianism goes? Posner and Weyl have suggested we allow forced sale of land. Like, even if I'm enjoying my own home, a rich person can come buy me out. It's interesting, but a bit too for my tastes.
-
What I'm suggesting is that developers who'd like to buy land in fully consensual transactions and then build moderate-density housing on it not be consistently blocked via a permitting process that favors the preferences of homeowners who benefit from a housing crisis.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Mason, your argument is solid. Simply limiting supply to drive up prices, or to keep things "quaint" and newcomers out, has a terribly negative socioeconomic impact. That certainly does seem antisocial.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.