Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
Most people are homeowners, and such policies are terrible for homeowners net worth. So I'd say it's highly debatable whether a policy that harms most households is a clear public policy winner. I agree it's probably a societal good, and improves equity, the environment and upward mobility but any policy that makes homeowners poorer is a difficult lift.
|
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.
Quote:
|
I don't believe this, at all. The next mayor of Burlingame or Los Altos Hills whose platform is "I promise to lower your SFH values" is gonna be out of a job.
|
I'm not talking about mayors of small cities, I'm talking about state legislators. Regardless, like I mentioned above, limited zoning increases nearly always (always? I've never seen otherwise in California) increase values of even SFHs, because the land can now be developed more intensely. I get that people don't like zoning increases for other reasons, but I've never seen a case in the Bay Area where a zoning increase resulted in lower property values.