The NIMBY stuff, at least around my area in the NYC suburbs, is about preventing a different type of housing to go up. NIMBY fights tooth and nail to prevent more dense zoning of land that results in an increase in kids going to the local schools (plus it makes it cheaper to break into said suburb and undermines the sort of “wealth filter”).
It’s very contentious because NJ state has mandated a certain amount of high density housing in most/all(?) NJ suburbs so we do have some multi family dwellings being built.
There was recently a multifamily dwelling community built not that far from me, although it’s all only 2 stories I think. But that one is actually great because it’s specifically only 60+ I think, so more tax payers without kids for the school system.
The supply of housing is caused by both, and I’d agree it’s some pretty legitimate NIMBYism, if you will. But from a simple issue of supply versus demand, people are fighting for supply in this given distance from this highly valuable city to remain unchanged.
One could argue maybe we should improve the train lines so it becomes increasingly feasible to commute from farther out? But easier to mandate changes to zoning laws.
Oh yeah I think the trouble is in these suburbs there’s no more room for more similar houses, so there’s desire to make the zoning more flexible to turn some of those houses into small apartment buildings so more people can live in that same town than could fit before. And then the “NIMBY” thing started because many of these residents are quite liberal so they’re happy with the concept of making housing more affordable but do a 180 when they see how it would impact them.
There’s also the issue that their house would become worth less if the town becomes more urban and if the school deteriorates because it has a material increase in pupils supported by new residents who systemically provide less tax/person.
Do you have any feel for the history? Did the builders need to tear down existing urban single family houses on 1/6 acre lots to clear the land to build the multifamily housing, or were those the first “urban” structures on green fields? And, what did the builders assume for transportation. Were they built with adequate parking for automobile dependent residents, or were they built around public transportation?
I’m guessing that the building patterns in the US assumed more people would be rich enough to own cars, but that might be my personal history.
I often hear this trumpeted but it’s rarely true. In many cases in other countries, if the newly designated multi use zone is considered desirable the value of each plot of land goes up when it’s rezoned (supply and demand).
I think NYC is a special case in that it’s already too big and a disproportionate number of jobs are in Manhattan.
I think NIMBY gets used in different ways-- it includes: things that really don’t belong next to human beings (garbage dumps), things that belong in select neighborhoods (gambling), things that are annoying but need to be next to people (highways, trains), certain kinds of housing development (dense, poor, minority), and in some cases any housing development (to keep my beach/lake/forest/etc. pristine).
But we could probably reduce the conversation to:
Does the individual have the same incentives as the aggregate? Probably not.
Except for the pandemic thing, which isn’t about money, I feel like my life is pretty good. I live in a place I like. I eat whatever I want. (except that I’m now afraid to eat out.) I do the traveling I want to do. (except, yeah, pandemic.) I buy the toys I want. I’m not worried that a health problem will destroy my life.
Sure, I can’t afford my own private jet. But I don’t actually WANT my own private jet, either.
Based on that I would define lower class as probably < $35,000 a year
Low-Middle as between $35K and $50K
Middle as between $50K and $85K
Upper-Middle as between $85K and $125K
Upper class as > $125K
I would consider anyone in “upper class” as rich. The problem is you often move into neighborhoods and associate with those around your class level. And there are always people richer than you, many much richer. And at $125K household income, there are still lots of bills, you can’t buy the fanciest toys/cars, etc. So it’s nice to think of yourself as “upper middle class”, even if you are well beyond that. I think it’s a trap everyone falls into.
Have to be careful about those kinds of charts. The difference between a couple who’s pulling 150k and owns their own house, a rental house, and has no debt vs one who is paying on a mortgage, 100k of student loans, and 1 car loan is substantial.
The houses are worth a lot because they’re scarce. When you make it easier to move into the town you’re increasing the supply of housing in that town, so you’d expect the price to go down on the remaining houses, all else equal. You could argue that you’ve created new demand because of the apartment building being so desperate to get in there, I think that’s debatable.
The bigger issue is the quality of the town itself will degrade as lower income people move in and the schools have to provide for more students with only marginally more resources. The quality of the school system is one of the biggest predictors of the value of the houses in suburban towns.
Also true. Talking to a guy who had been deported from the US multiple times, I asked him why he kept going back and he said “it’s better to be poor in the US than to be poor in Mexico”. And that is 100% true.
