The problem with even the best economic analysis (admittedly the only kind on this substack) is that people don't live in an economy -- they live in a neighborhood, a community, a town, a nation. Or, rather, they did. At some point, "do I want my town to fill up with people who don't like me and aren't like me even if there are proven ec…
The problem with even the best economic analysis (admittedly the only kind on this substack) is that people don't live in an economy -- they live in a neighborhood, a community, a town, a nation. Or, rather, they did. At some point, "do I want my town to fill up with people who don't like me and aren't like me even if there are proven economic benefits?" flips from 'yes' to 'no'.
Similarly, many people could double the rent they make from the spare room by kicking out grandma and renting to a hard-working family of four, and can make even more by renting out the garage and building an ADU in the backyard, but not everything is about money. Not for everyone.
I think this article and it’s analysis are best used to explain why this issue isn’t as salient as it should be. If everyone understood the economics of supply and demand, the concerns of local neighborhoods would be drastically overmatched by votes at less local levels. It’s only because of a lack of critical mass that understands the issue that local homeowners are able to exert such outsized influence.
This is a bit like the whole fictitious 'loss aversion' -- we evolved to be wary of hidden downsides, and we're often right (even when we don't have the numeracy to explain how).
But you don't have any right to BAN other people from building an ADU in their backyard. So your comment is 100% fallacious. The question is not about whether you personally want to build an ADU, it's about the negative economic impacts of (unconstitutionally) banning everyone from building an ADU.
* use of the word "fallacious" despite there being no formal or informal fallacies
* reference to the Constitution
* two weeks late
I'm tempted to ask if you are catching up on Substack now that high school is out for the summer but depending on where you live that joke won't land until next week.
Yup. I was way more YIMBY before it coalesced into a movement. The blinders on in this article are insane.
Bryan. It’s just not possible that, at this point, you’re unaware that the reason people oppose developments in their neighborhoods are typically not economic. WE’RE NOT LOOKING TO SELL OUR HOUSE.
I want my kids to be able to ride their bikes in the street, to attend schools nearby that are not insanely overcrowded, to be able to fit on the train during my commute and to not have the already horrible LIRR degenerate further to the point where it’s actually unusable, to be able to walk into a restaurant without reservations, to keep crime low… you know, actual quotidian life instead of theoretically you-pinky-swear-it’s-true that we’ll get more money for our house should we decide to move after you’ve wrecked our neighborhood. Housing prices are a really low priority, in either direction.
Almost all of these problems are either solved/helped by YIMBYism or privatizing transportation and its infrastructure. Riding bikes in the street is more plausible with tolled roads and more walkable infrastructure creating less traffic. Crime will probably go down due to increased development - unused lots make places ugly and studies show that more developed areas have less crime. (He explains this at the time 22:37 here https://youtu.be/QtO4GRbDTmI).
You'll also probably get more restaurants to meet demand. Also, a lot of these problems as re trivial compared to the housing crisis.
"Crime will probably go down due to increased development"
There were several instances in the city I used to live in where the building of apartment buildings in places that used to be dominated by single family homes resulted in a lot of black people moving in and both crime and school dysfunction increased. Fights over school districting zones got brutal. Eventually this also brought down home values.
As to the rest, the YIMBY movement needs to understand that unless it solves the fact that crime and schools, which are a huge portion of real estate value, need to be addressed first its more or less dead in the water. But fighting political battles over crime and schools isn't an area where libertarians are popular and can blame it on approved of groups.
Separation of school and state, or, at least, school choice solves that issue. We already have a solution that many places use (Colorado has a bunch of charter schools, for example) so that is a non-starter issue.
As popular as charter/vouchers are, this is exactly and area where libertarians are popular.
Until recently there was school choice in zero states.
There were a few instances in which some poor families could go to charter schools, which are just another kind of government school run almost the same. When covid came all the charter schools closed for a long time and made kids wear masks just like the public schools.
Now there are a few red states where some people can get back 50% or so of the kids funding to spend on some other government approved schooling. Availability and restrictions vary amongst these states. Funding for this choice is unclear, many bills restrict it to some cap as a % of the population, others haven’t worked out the funding source. It’s unknown if everyone trying to do it would get the money.
In most states and most of the population there is no choice. There is no prospect for getting this passed outside of deep red states.
It’s pretty obvious that the only way to pass school choice is to have the gop win huge in elections, but I don’t see any libertarians prioritizing that. Bryan is in Virginia and his state had an election centered around education, wokeness, and covid it he still didn’t make an endorsement.
Charter schools aren't just another kind of government school. While they are "public", they are run outside the government school system. So they have different incentives than government schools. They are a weird quasi-public/private that I am not entirely comfortable with, but they are different.
They are a step in the right direction, if not the perfect solution or ultimate goal. And you can get them in places that aren't deep red. You would have a revolt in CO for example, if they went away.
Dude I went to a charter school and I tutored in one in high school. I know their value but I also know their limitations.
At the end of the day they are a place subject to many of the same limitations as all government schools. This was really apparent during covid, but it’s apparent in other ways too (the charter schools in are area are subject to all the same woke stuff).
Yes you can sit in a room behind a desk with a slightly different curriculum and a slightly selected demographic.
It’s a good point and it resonates with my experience growing up in a middle class suburb near an affordable housing development. We knew who the bike thieves and muggers were. It was painfully obvious to everyone.
If you think "riding a bike through the streets" requires ultra low density, then it shows you are ignorant and irrational. You are the people Bryan is referring to. You should visit the Netherlands once.
You might be shocked to learn that there is more than one kind of activity that can be described as "riding a bike through the street". If you assume there is only one kind and that some other commenter doesn't know about European street-bicycling (or third-world street-bicycling for that matter) your problem isn't ignorance, it's something else.
The problem with even the best economic analysis (admittedly the only kind on this substack) is that people don't live in an economy -- they live in a neighborhood, a community, a town, a nation. Or, rather, they did. At some point, "do I want my town to fill up with people who don't like me and aren't like me even if there are proven economic benefits?" flips from 'yes' to 'no'.
Similarly, many people could double the rent they make from the spare room by kicking out grandma and renting to a hard-working family of four, and can make even more by renting out the garage and building an ADU in the backyard, but not everything is about money. Not for everyone.
I think this article and it’s analysis are best used to explain why this issue isn’t as salient as it should be. If everyone understood the economics of supply and demand, the concerns of local neighborhoods would be drastically overmatched by votes at less local levels. It’s only because of a lack of critical mass that understands the issue that local homeowners are able to exert such outsized influence.
This is a bit like the whole fictitious 'loss aversion' -- we evolved to be wary of hidden downsides, and we're often right (even when we don't have the numeracy to explain how).
But you don't have any right to BAN other people from building an ADU in their backyard. So your comment is 100% fallacious. The question is not about whether you personally want to build an ADU, it's about the negative economic impacts of (unconstitutionally) banning everyone from building an ADU.
* absolutely no awareness of my actual point
* use of the word "fallacious" despite there being no formal or informal fallacies
* reference to the Constitution
* two weeks late
I'm tempted to ask if you are catching up on Substack now that high school is out for the summer but depending on where you live that joke won't land until next week.
Just looks like you never actually read the Substack post that you commented on.
You should learn about urban design and property rights sometime.
Sure thing kiddo.
Enjoy your fallacies.
I will. To help me out a little, would you name one?
Yup. I was way more YIMBY before it coalesced into a movement. The blinders on in this article are insane.
Bryan. It’s just not possible that, at this point, you’re unaware that the reason people oppose developments in their neighborhoods are typically not economic. WE’RE NOT LOOKING TO SELL OUR HOUSE.
I want my kids to be able to ride their bikes in the street, to attend schools nearby that are not insanely overcrowded, to be able to fit on the train during my commute and to not have the already horrible LIRR degenerate further to the point where it’s actually unusable, to be able to walk into a restaurant without reservations, to keep crime low… you know, actual quotidian life instead of theoretically you-pinky-swear-it’s-true that we’ll get more money for our house should we decide to move after you’ve wrecked our neighborhood. Housing prices are a really low priority, in either direction.
Did you actually read the article cited? It doesn't say anything inconsistent with what you are saying.
Almost all of these problems are either solved/helped by YIMBYism or privatizing transportation and its infrastructure. Riding bikes in the street is more plausible with tolled roads and more walkable infrastructure creating less traffic. Crime will probably go down due to increased development - unused lots make places ugly and studies show that more developed areas have less crime. (He explains this at the time 22:37 here https://youtu.be/QtO4GRbDTmI).
You'll also probably get more restaurants to meet demand. Also, a lot of these problems as re trivial compared to the housing crisis.
"Crime will probably go down due to increased development"
There were several instances in the city I used to live in where the building of apartment buildings in places that used to be dominated by single family homes resulted in a lot of black people moving in and both crime and school dysfunction increased. Fights over school districting zones got brutal. Eventually this also brought down home values.
As to the rest, the YIMBY movement needs to understand that unless it solves the fact that crime and schools, which are a huge portion of real estate value, need to be addressed first its more or less dead in the water. But fighting political battles over crime and schools isn't an area where libertarians are popular and can blame it on approved of groups.
"Fights over school districting zones"
Separation of school and state, or, at least, school choice solves that issue. We already have a solution that many places use (Colorado has a bunch of charter schools, for example) so that is a non-starter issue.
As popular as charter/vouchers are, this is exactly and area where libertarians are popular.
Until recently there was school choice in zero states.
There were a few instances in which some poor families could go to charter schools, which are just another kind of government school run almost the same. When covid came all the charter schools closed for a long time and made kids wear masks just like the public schools.
Now there are a few red states where some people can get back 50% or so of the kids funding to spend on some other government approved schooling. Availability and restrictions vary amongst these states. Funding for this choice is unclear, many bills restrict it to some cap as a % of the population, others haven’t worked out the funding source. It’s unknown if everyone trying to do it would get the money.
In most states and most of the population there is no choice. There is no prospect for getting this passed outside of deep red states.
It’s pretty obvious that the only way to pass school choice is to have the gop win huge in elections, but I don’t see any libertarians prioritizing that. Bryan is in Virginia and his state had an election centered around education, wokeness, and covid it he still didn’t make an endorsement.
Charter schools aren't just another kind of government school. While they are "public", they are run outside the government school system. So they have different incentives than government schools. They are a weird quasi-public/private that I am not entirely comfortable with, but they are different.
They are a step in the right direction, if not the perfect solution or ultimate goal. And you can get them in places that aren't deep red. You would have a revolt in CO for example, if they went away.
Dude I went to a charter school and I tutored in one in high school. I know their value but I also know their limitations.
At the end of the day they are a place subject to many of the same limitations as all government schools. This was really apparent during covid, but it’s apparent in other ways too (the charter schools in are area are subject to all the same woke stuff).
Yes you can sit in a room behind a desk with a slightly different curriculum and a slightly selected demographic.
It’s a good point and it resonates with my experience growing up in a middle class suburb near an affordable housing development. We knew who the bike thieves and muggers were. It was painfully obvious to everyone.
If you think "riding a bike through the streets" requires ultra low density, then it shows you are ignorant and irrational. You are the people Bryan is referring to. You should visit the Netherlands once.
US density isn’t Dutch density. Different demographics, gun proliferation, law enforcement model.
You might be shocked to learn that there is more than one kind of activity that can be described as "riding a bike through the street". If you assume there is only one kind and that some other commenter doesn't know about European street-bicycling (or third-world street-bicycling for that matter) your problem isn't ignorance, it's something else.