Indeed, not for them; they lose out, illustrating why these policies do not generate Pareto improvements.
The benefits are for the marginal residents of this area, who would not be able to live there but for the cost-of-living reduction created by lowering the price of rent and housing through the increase of housing supply.
The benefits are for renters, who are on average significantly poorer than homeowners and need these cost-of-living reductions far more.
The benefits are for the economy, both overall (increasing the supply of housing increases the sum total of real goods produced in the economy, by reducing the deadweight loss and economic rent captured by existing homeowners) and locally (since new, productive residents move in and start purchasing goods and services from local businesses, increasing their sales and profit as a result).
The benefits are for anyone who uses public services in the area (such as roads, parks, police services, schools, etc.), since those services are funded by local taxes, and the local tax base increases when new residents can move in and engage in economic activities.
The benefits are for new homeowners, who would like to purchase a house in a nice area where they have access to good jobs, but who often cannot because houses cost millions of dollars in the most sought-after neighborhoods (see: virtually all of San Francisco) due to artificial restrictions on supply.
The benefits are for investors and construction companies, who would like to create economic value for themselves and their surrounding community but can’t because of zoning regulations or other legal restrictions.
The housing crisis has been going on for quite a while at this point, and its deleterious effects touch almost all aspects of urban and suburban life, particularly in the United States. Increasing the supply of housing through YIMBY policies is the only economically literate and sustainable way of fighting against it.
Alright so there’s an acknowledgement that at the very least, the people who originally occupied that nice area are losing out.
Your breakdown of the benefits seems more or less fair. The only thing I take issue with is “who would like to purchase a house in a nice area where they have access to good jobs”. I don’t think it’s fair to take it for granted that the area will stay nice post-YIMBY change (in fact the core acknowledgement here is that the character of the neighborhood is going to change) or that jobs will stay.
Would you consider that a “load bearing belief” for your YIMBYism? As in, if it’s possible that by enabling YIMBYism to come to a nice neighborhood with lots of jobs, both of those characters of the neighborhood might be changed, that might prompt you to change your position?
Alright so there’s an acknowledgement that at the very least, the people who originally occupied that nice area are losing out.
I’d say those people could be losing out. But usually only if the following conjunction happens:
they are homeowners as opposed to renters (otherwise the reduction in rent would reduce their cost of living and improve their lives to such an extent that it would likely overcome aesthetic sensibilities)
they are not small business owners/investors in such businesses (otherwise the larger clientele should excite them for the potential profit it will allow them to obtain)
they care more about maintaining a specific aesthetic vibe of their neighborhood than they do about the increased quality of public services generated by having a larger tax base
If these bullet points hold (and to be clear, they certainly hold for a non-negligible minority of the population), they would indeed lose out.
I don’t think it’s fair to take it for granted that the area will stay nice post-YIMBY change (in fact the core acknowledgement here is that the character of the neighborhood is going to change) or that jobs will stay.
The types of jobs I had in mind were, for example, tech jobs in California, where even a high-by-national-standards salary is often insufficient to allow those people to buy houses in the Bay Area.
In any case, the types of workers who could move to high-cost-of-living areas tend disproportionately to be white-collar workers, and these industries would have no reason to move away from an area when it becomes larger and more economically productive. On the contrary, the fact that many prospective workers would be able to move to a city after an YIMBY change serves as a powerful economic incentive for these companies to actually stay, since they now have a lot of new possible employees to select from.
Plus, I think whether the area is “nice” or not is mostly a matter of taste. A significant proportion of the population prefers class/racial homogeneity and single-family-zoned suburban vibes in their neighborhoods, but that doesn’t make alternatives to it not nice; density, if properly done, allows for a different kind of flourishing that prospective residents with different aesthetic tastes can enjoy.
Would you consider that a “load bearing belief” for your YIMBYism? As in, if it’s possible that by enabling YIMBYism to come to a nice neighborhood with lots of jobs, both of those characters of the neighborhood might be changed, that might prompt you to change your position?
I think it’s not a load bearing belief. The arguments for economic efficiency and the elimination of deadweight loss and economic rents, the benefits to local businesses, the progressive reduction of cost-of-living massively helping the renter class, and the value given to those who either invest in the area or benefit from public services, would still be more than sufficiently compelling for me to remain a YIMBY.
they are homeowners as opposed to renters (otherwise the reduction in rent would reduce their cost of living and improve their lives to such an extent that it would likely overcome aesthetic sensibilities)
It is actually very easy for renters to lose out due to YIMBYism, because your “otherwise” clause is flat wrong—there is essentially no amount of rent reduction that could improve my life to the point of compensating for (to take an obvious example) my favorite restaurants, cafes, stores, bagel shops, etc. all going out of business (which is one possible way in which “the character of a neighborhood” can change). This is basically a trivial, yet critical, point: if something is not available, then I can’t buy it with money. If I can’t buy something I want with money, then no amount of money will get me the thing that I want.
Your term “aesthetic sensibilities” is essentially a trivialization of the factors that constitute, to a large extent, the texture of a person’s day-to-day life. I don’t see why I should give up most of the things that I enjoy about what my day-to-day life is like, in order that… other people… might benefit?
My default position on this sort of topic is to oppose YIMBYism reflexively, for a very simple reason: I like my neighborhood and I don’t want it to change (well, it could stand to be cleaner, but as experience shows, that’s solved by electing better local government officials). If what you’re proposing involves my neighborhood changing, then I don’t like it. You’re gonna have to sell me on your proposition real hard if you want to overcome that very simple point. And basically no amount of “other people will benefit” will suffice to convince me.
there is essentially no amount of rent reduction that could improve my life to the point of compensating for (to take an obvious example) my favorite restaurants, cafes, stores, bagel shops, etc. all going out of business (which is one possible way in which “the character of a neighborhood” can change)
I can believe this statement is true for you-in-particular, but I do not believe it is true for most renters in these high cost-of-living areas. These people usually struggle to make ends meet to the point where rent and housing costs represent a critical part of their monthly budgets; alleviating those is generally more important to them than maintaining the overall vibe of the area.
I also find it difficult to imagine that your “favorite restaurants, cafes, stores, bagel shops, etc. all going out of business” is a likely outcome of building new houses, particularly because new residents coming in increases the demand for those services. I am sure it can happen (and perhaps it has, in your own life), but in the majority of situations these businesses would flourish, expand their services, hire new workers, etc. And to the extent they don’t, that’s largely because of increased competition from more economically efficient and desirable shops and businesses; I view this as good rather than bad.
Your term “aesthetic sensibilities” is essentially a trivialization of the factors that constitute, to a large extent, the texture of a person’s day-to-day life.
You call it a trivialization; I call it a correct factual description. I think I’m correct here; note that I mentioned many people care more about aesthetics and vibes than they do about strictly economic matters. It’s of nontrivial importance, but it’s still aesthetic in nature.
I don’t see why I should give up most of the things that I enjoy about what my day-to-day life is like, in order that… other people… might benefit?
It’s generally referred to as altruism, I think. But in any case, I’m neither fully altruistic myself, nor do I generally prescribe it to others. Given your beliefs and preferences as you’ve expressed them here, I don’t think you should want to give any of that up.
But given my beliefs and preferences as I’ve expressed them here, I think we’re in the realm of conflict and not mistake, and I strongly approve of governmental efforts to remove restrictions on zoning and enact YIMBY policies. This is not an instance of a heavy governmental touch coming in to regulate the economy and restrict individual choice; it’s an instance of deregulation, where the free market right-to-build and right-to-contract are currently impeded by those who themselves restrict the freedom of others, seek out economic rents, and already benefit from the goods and services available. Changing the locus of control from local to state-level, in the US, is one example of an appropriate such structural change.
Unsurprisingly, I also approve of progressive taxation,[1] even though I also don’t see why rich people should necessarily want to give up their money so that other people might benefit.
The areas of this argument that stands out to me as the biggest loci for disagreements are best summarized in the following sections:
care more about maintaining a specific aesthetic vibe of their neighborhood than they do about the increased quality of public services generated by having a larger tax base
and
Plus, I think whether the area is “nice” or not is mostly a matter of taste.
First, there’s the “aesthetic” point. You’ve said here that you don’t consider crime concerns to be aesthetic preferences. Yet when you’re talking about the character of a neighborhood, you focus on aesthetic concerns. I think ignoring how front of mind the crime concern is to NIMBYs and even YIMBY skeptics is going to do nothing but hurt your odds in convincing anyone.
The assumption in the statement of “increased quality of public services generated by having a larger tax base” is that as population grows and the tax base grows, public services will get better. That is a very large assumption, and one you’re certainly going to need to prove.
Lastly on “nice” being mostly a matter of taste, I think that’s partly true but there are certainly things everyone would agree on being nice. Not having trash littering the streets is nice. Being able to walk around safely at night without fear is nice. There is such a thing as universally preferred “niceness” in neighborhoods.
I’d encourage you to keep in mind that when pitching plans, the ideas behind them simply exist in the world of theory. They have to be executed in reality. When you advocate a position to someone, you should be able to anticipate their worries, and lay out specific and concrete steps to address them. I have seen this in particular with YIMBYs there is a tendency to, as @Said Achmiz pointed out, trivialize concerns (or just ignore them completely as I’m pointing out with the crime).
When it comes to plans, the messenger (or the party who will be trusted with the execution of a plan) and their capabilities are often equally or more important to the message itself.
I’d encourage you to keep in mind that when pitching plans, the ideas behind them simply exist in the world of theory. They have to be executed in reality. When you advocate a position to someone, you should be able to anticipate their worries, and lay out specific and concrete steps to address them. I have seen this in particular with YIMBYs there is a tendency to, as @Said Achmiz pointed out, trivialize concerns (or just ignore them completely as I’m pointing out with the crime).
I appreciate your comment, and I certainly agree with this part. For purposes of time, I will not spend too much additional time illustrating the specific evidence I trust that speaks to the change in the prevalence of crime in upzoned neighborhoods and the way quality of public services changes when the tax base grows, but it’s perhaps unsurprising that I view both topics as providing support for the YIMBY position, as opposed to the reverse.
And while I acknowledge the importance of proper messaging that acknowledges the concerns residents may have, I also believe there are No Universally Compelling Arguments for YIMBYism. Ultimately, somebody with the beliefs and preferences of Said Achmiz should not, from his perspective, support YIMBYs, and should instead oppose them whenever they try to change his neighborhood. I view this fact as inevitable, and the NIMBYs who feel this way as political opponents.
Indeed, not for them; they lose out, illustrating why these policies do not generate Pareto improvements.
The benefits are for the marginal residents of this area, who would not be able to live there but for the cost-of-living reduction created by lowering the price of rent and housing through the increase of housing supply.
The benefits are for renters, who are on average significantly poorer than homeowners and need these cost-of-living reductions far more.
The benefits are for the economy, both overall (increasing the supply of housing increases the sum total of real goods produced in the economy, by reducing the deadweight loss and economic rent captured by existing homeowners) and locally (since new, productive residents move in and start purchasing goods and services from local businesses, increasing their sales and profit as a result).
The benefits are for anyone who uses public services in the area (such as roads, parks, police services, schools, etc.), since those services are funded by local taxes, and the local tax base increases when new residents can move in and engage in economic activities.
The benefits are for new homeowners, who would like to purchase a house in a nice area where they have access to good jobs, but who often cannot because houses cost millions of dollars in the most sought-after neighborhoods (see: virtually all of San Francisco) due to artificial restrictions on supply.
The benefits are for investors and construction companies, who would like to create economic value for themselves and their surrounding community but can’t because of zoning regulations or other legal restrictions.
The housing crisis has been going on for quite a while at this point, and its deleterious effects touch almost all aspects of urban and suburban life, particularly in the United States. Increasing the supply of housing through YIMBY policies is the only economically literate and sustainable way of fighting against it.
Alright so there’s an acknowledgement that at the very least, the people who originally occupied that nice area are losing out.
Your breakdown of the benefits seems more or less fair. The only thing I take issue with is “who would like to purchase a house in a nice area where they have access to good jobs”. I don’t think it’s fair to take it for granted that the area will stay nice post-YIMBY change (in fact the core acknowledgement here is that the character of the neighborhood is going to change) or that jobs will stay.
Would you consider that a “load bearing belief” for your YIMBYism? As in, if it’s possible that by enabling YIMBYism to come to a nice neighborhood with lots of jobs, both of those characters of the neighborhood might be changed, that might prompt you to change your position?
I’d say those people could be losing out. But usually only if the following conjunction happens:
they are homeowners as opposed to renters (otherwise the reduction in rent would reduce their cost of living and improve their lives to such an extent that it would likely overcome aesthetic sensibilities)
they are not small business owners/investors in such businesses (otherwise the larger clientele should excite them for the potential profit it will allow them to obtain)
they care more about maintaining a specific aesthetic vibe of their neighborhood than they do about the increased quality of public services generated by having a larger tax base
If these bullet points hold (and to be clear, they certainly hold for a non-negligible minority of the population), they would indeed lose out.
The types of jobs I had in mind were, for example, tech jobs in California, where even a high-by-national-standards salary is often insufficient to allow those people to buy houses in the Bay Area.
In any case, the types of workers who could move to high-cost-of-living areas tend disproportionately to be white-collar workers, and these industries would have no reason to move away from an area when it becomes larger and more economically productive. On the contrary, the fact that many prospective workers would be able to move to a city after an YIMBY change serves as a powerful economic incentive for these companies to actually stay, since they now have a lot of new possible employees to select from.
Plus, I think whether the area is “nice” or not is mostly a matter of taste. A significant proportion of the population prefers class/racial homogeneity and single-family-zoned suburban vibes in their neighborhoods, but that doesn’t make alternatives to it not nice; density, if properly done, allows for a different kind of flourishing that prospective residents with different aesthetic tastes can enjoy.
I think it’s not a load bearing belief. The arguments for economic efficiency and the elimination of deadweight loss and economic rents, the benefits to local businesses, the progressive reduction of cost-of-living massively helping the renter class, and the value given to those who either invest in the area or benefit from public services, would still be more than sufficiently compelling for me to remain a YIMBY.
It is actually very easy for renters to lose out due to YIMBYism, because your “otherwise” clause is flat wrong—there is essentially no amount of rent reduction that could improve my life to the point of compensating for (to take an obvious example) my favorite restaurants, cafes, stores, bagel shops, etc. all going out of business (which is one possible way in which “the character of a neighborhood” can change). This is basically a trivial, yet critical, point: if something is not available, then I can’t buy it with money. If I can’t buy something I want with money, then no amount of money will get me the thing that I want.
Your term “aesthetic sensibilities” is essentially a trivialization of the factors that constitute, to a large extent, the texture of a person’s day-to-day life. I don’t see why I should give up most of the things that I enjoy about what my day-to-day life is like, in order that… other people… might benefit?
My default position on this sort of topic is to oppose YIMBYism reflexively, for a very simple reason: I like my neighborhood and I don’t want it to change (well, it could stand to be cleaner, but as experience shows, that’s solved by electing better local government officials). If what you’re proposing involves my neighborhood changing, then I don’t like it. You’re gonna have to sell me on your proposition real hard if you want to overcome that very simple point. And basically no amount of “other people will benefit” will suffice to convince me.
I can believe this statement is true for you-in-particular, but I do not believe it is true for most renters in these high cost-of-living areas. These people usually struggle to make ends meet to the point where rent and housing costs represent a critical part of their monthly budgets; alleviating those is generally more important to them than maintaining the overall vibe of the area.
I also find it difficult to imagine that your “favorite restaurants, cafes, stores, bagel shops, etc. all going out of business” is a likely outcome of building new houses, particularly because new residents coming in increases the demand for those services. I am sure it can happen (and perhaps it has, in your own life), but in the majority of situations these businesses would flourish, expand their services, hire new workers, etc. And to the extent they don’t, that’s largely because of increased competition from more economically efficient and desirable shops and businesses; I view this as good rather than bad.
You call it a trivialization; I call it a correct factual description. I think I’m correct here; note that I mentioned many people care more about aesthetics and vibes than they do about strictly economic matters. It’s of nontrivial importance, but it’s still aesthetic in nature.
It’s generally referred to as altruism, I think. But in any case, I’m neither fully altruistic myself, nor do I generally prescribe it to others. Given your beliefs and preferences as you’ve expressed them here, I don’t think you should want to give any of that up.
But given my beliefs and preferences as I’ve expressed them here, I think we’re in the realm of conflict and not mistake, and I strongly approve of governmental efforts to remove restrictions on zoning and enact YIMBY policies. This is not an instance of a heavy governmental touch coming in to regulate the economy and restrict individual choice; it’s an instance of deregulation, where the free market right-to-build and right-to-contract are currently impeded by those who themselves restrict the freedom of others, seek out economic rents, and already benefit from the goods and services available. Changing the locus of control from local to state-level, in the US, is one example of an appropriate such structural change.
Unsurprisingly, I also approve of progressive taxation,[1] even though I also don’t see why rich people should necessarily want to give up their money so that other people might benefit.
At least as long as the Overton window doesn’t allow for more economically literate taxation systems like LVT and a VAT + income-based rebates
Would you consider being worried about an increase in crime an “aesthetic preference”?
I think I generally wouldn’t.
The areas of this argument that stands out to me as the biggest loci for disagreements are best summarized in the following sections:
and
First, there’s the “aesthetic” point. You’ve said here that you don’t consider crime concerns to be aesthetic preferences. Yet when you’re talking about the character of a neighborhood, you focus on aesthetic concerns. I think ignoring how front of mind the crime concern is to NIMBYs and even YIMBY skeptics is going to do nothing but hurt your odds in convincing anyone.
The assumption in the statement of “increased quality of public services generated by having a larger tax base” is that as population grows and the tax base grows, public services will get better. That is a very large assumption, and one you’re certainly going to need to prove.
Lastly on “nice” being mostly a matter of taste, I think that’s partly true but there are certainly things everyone would agree on being nice. Not having trash littering the streets is nice. Being able to walk around safely at night without fear is nice. There is such a thing as universally preferred “niceness” in neighborhoods.
I’d encourage you to keep in mind that when pitching plans, the ideas behind them simply exist in the world of theory. They have to be executed in reality. When you advocate a position to someone, you should be able to anticipate their worries, and lay out specific and concrete steps to address them. I have seen this in particular with YIMBYs there is a tendency to, as @Said Achmiz pointed out, trivialize concerns (or just ignore them completely as I’m pointing out with the crime).
When it comes to plans, the messenger (or the party who will be trusted with the execution of a plan) and their capabilities are often equally or more important to the message itself.
I appreciate your comment, and I certainly agree with this part. For purposes of time, I will not spend too much additional time illustrating the specific evidence I trust that speaks to the change in the prevalence of crime in upzoned neighborhoods and the way quality of public services changes when the tax base grows, but it’s perhaps unsurprising that I view both topics as providing support for the YIMBY position, as opposed to the reverse.
And while I acknowledge the importance of proper messaging that acknowledges the concerns residents may have, I also believe there are No Universally Compelling Arguments for YIMBYism. Ultimately, somebody with the beliefs and preferences of Said Achmiz should not, from his perspective, support YIMBYs, and should instead oppose them whenever they try to change his neighborhood. I view this fact as inevitable, and the NIMBYs who feel this way as political opponents.