[HN Gopher] California Strip Malls to Be Upzoned Tomorrow
___________________________________________________________________
California Strip Malls to Be Upzoned Tomorrow
Author : jseliger
Score : 27 points
Date : 2023-06-30 14:18 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (darrellowens.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (darrellowens.substack.com)
| ryanschaefer wrote:
| This is always great to see.
|
| Something I've never understood with opposition to denser zoning
| is the following. If the land is up zoned surely it's market
| value increases in turn because the range of what can be built on
| it increases? Your house might be worth $X amount as a single
| family home but if your land were incorporated into a new
| apartment complex which has 4-5x more homes in the same space, it
| is objectively worth more, right? Where then, does the common
| belief that an increase in housing decreases home value arise?
|
| Never made sense to me.
| gloryjulio wrote:
| 1. Total value would probably end up being more, but the values
| of existing stocks would drop due to the increased supply
|
| 2. Rent would certainly drop
| ryanschaefer wrote:
| Surely there's a level at which the market is price
| saturated. As in, marginally, a homes value can't increase as
| rapidly zoned as a single family home as it could if it were
| zoned less restrictively. This would be based on overall
| location desirability I would think. I wonder if there have
| been any studies done on this topic.
| duped wrote:
| I mean some people legitimately do not want to live in denser
| areas or want an apartment building next door to them. The
| value of the land isn't just the utility of it.
|
| Like I would probably sell my house and move if my neighborhood
| was upzoned and my neighbors sold to a developer putting in a
| multi unit building. That would suck. Great for society,
| terrible for me.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| The fantasy is that you get to stay in your house while its
| value rises. Having to leave (because they need to build the
| apartment complex) is less appealing, not least because now you
| have to find a new place to live and, if nearby prices have
| gone up, you're not much better off than before (this is
| especially true of the huge number of people who bought houses
| at extremely low rates since 2008, since they'd have to
| refinance at current rates), or else you have to move further
| away from your friends/family/community.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Unless you're interested in selling your house, that it
| technically rises in value really only means that you pay more
| in property tax. It being worth more doesn't help you.
|
| Lots of people have purchased a home where they have with the
| intention of living there permanently. If the density around
| them increases, that decreases their enjoyment of their home
| and ultimately may force them to sell and move elsewhere. Which
| is a serious PITA and may not be feasible if it means they'd
| have to find a new job elsewhere.
|
| So for many people, there is nothing but downside to this
| happening for them, personally.
| dalyons wrote:
| I mean not in cali, the property tax isn't allowed to
| increase. That's part of the problem.
| threemux wrote:
| The value of some places is the very fact that they're low
| density. I don't think that applies to strip malls necessarily,
| but this is why people come out strong against upzoning
| suburban or rural areas. The people that live there like it the
| way it is, and you can't give more people that experience as
| more people ruins what's good about it.
| prottog wrote:
| > The value of some places is the very fact that they're low
| density.
|
| Exactly. Just look at a satellite image of Atherton, CA or
| Lexington MA; they're low-density residential places with
| plenty of greenery where each lot is sizable and crucially,
| near major economic centers with plenty of high-paying jobs.
| They're desirable precisely because they allow you more
| breathing room while being geographically close to the hustle
| and bustle of a big city.
| ryanschaefer wrote:
| There is an interesting assumption here that is sadly
| codified into law. That individuals' who desire the
| characteristics you describe are willing to pay more than
| the "true" value of the land if it were not protected by
| zoning.
|
| We might never know what case is true because both
| scenarios can't exist at once. I think the closest we can
| get would actually be Brookline, MA in the same vein as
| your example of Lexington. There are dense clusters in the
| area as well as single family homes. One could potentially
| look at any plots converted from single family homes to
| apartments/condos to determine each individual's
| willingness to be located in that relatively sparse city.
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| There was a previous "too good to be true" post from this same
| sub stack author a few months ago.
|
| IIRC he claimed that zoning was nearly going to end due to the
| builder's remedy provision in some recent CA bills.
|
| When I searched for other commentary from informed CA lawyers it
| seemed like the claims in the article were exaggerated.
|
| I hope that these are not exaggerated bc the changes outlined
| would be a good step, but do keep the caveat in mind.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-30 23:02 UTC)