Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo
You're switching back and forth between homeowners and SFH owners. Even so, I've never seen an upzone result in lower SFH values. Either it's as you mention - new condo supply doesn't impact SFH values negatively - or that upzoning of actual SFH land increases the value of the land so much (for teardown) that there is no value decrease.
|
Homeowners generally are SFH owners. The vast majority of homeowners in the U.S., especially in NIMBY high-cost suburbs (the issue under discussion) are SFH owners. So it's the same discussion.
I agree that upzonings probably don't result in SFH declines, but upzonings generally don't happen in SFH neighborhoods. And those are the "housing crisis" areas in the Bay Area.
And the question isn't whether or not an upzoning results in a SFH value decline, it's whether there's such a perception (and there is such a perception among SFH owners in the kind of places that need radical zoning change to affect home prices).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo
I'm not talking about mayors of small cities, I'm talking about state legislators.
|
If you're right and state legislators can override local zoning, then, yeah, it may be possible to lower overall prices. But I think there would be severe political costs, even at the state level, which is probably why no such initiative has happened (yet). And in places outside the U.S. where zoning is at the state/provincial level, and locals are largely powerless, I don't see greater overall affordability (see Canada). Toronto and Vancouver are less affordable than the Bay Area.