Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
While I understand the historic roots of the belief that allowing multi-family zoning lowers property values, I am not sure there's any evidence to suggest this is the case - when talking about market-rate development anyway.
|
I don't see the issue that way at all. I see the issue that you have established neighborhoods of single family homes and if you asked the owner-occupiers of those homes if they want multifamily housing plopped down in the middle of the existing neighborhood, they are likely to say, "No." If you disagree, then what we should do in each case is, in fact ask them and, by all means, rezone any that say, "Yes."
It doesn't matter to me so much why they say "No"; whether it's property values or more cars on the streets or the appearance of the neighborhood or some other quality of life issue. The point is why should outside decision-makers come in and disrupt what the existing residents paid for and are happy with, especially when I maintain it isn't necessary since there really are plenty of places to site multifamily buildings (along commercial strips, brownfields, parking lots etc etc) which take up much less land than tracts of single family houses (isn't that the point?).
What hardly exists, and therefore is very expensive, is places to put new single family homes with short commutes to downtowns in the environmentally pleasant coastal strip of California. There's plenty of land out in the CV. The northern third of the state is almost entirely rural and empty (but we are warned about people living in the "urban/rural interface" and the ever-present danger of TREES). But west of the coastal hills/mountains, where the climate is moderate and the beach access good and the California dream was created, and especially with a short drive to your SF or LA or SD office, it's really gonna cost you.