I regularly hear about how we need to change zoning laws to allow for more apartments to be built in single family homes zoning areas. I understand what zoning in but I’m confused what the case is for the change to the zoning.
I absolutely agree that housing prices are absurd but wouldn’t building more apartments just put more money/control in landlords/investment companies? I hear all the time that buying property is the best way to generate wealth for your family and that’s not to mention you can’t get evicted from stupid reasons if it’s your own home. The same people who seem to push for changing zoning laws seem to be very vocal about how so many people are trapped in cycles that makes it difficult to escape poverty (I do agree with that)
So can anyone explain how building more apartments wouldn’t be a Faustian bargain in the long run?
Edit: Thanks for all the responses, replying here as there’s too many helpful comments. I felt like I was just not getting it but most answers seem to confirm what I suspected. I know in my city apartment=renting while Condo=owning (usually) a part of a shared wall home that has a smaller size than most SFHs.
I wonder if the zoning could be adjusted to encourage more ownership rather than incentivizing more rentals. Perhaps having SFH zoning be redefined as owner-occupied zoning so you could have more density but it couldn’t be used as a rental scheme. You could also make allowances for “smallish” businesses near the various major crossroads.
I would think this would be something that nimby’s would be more ok with since in my own experience I feel more invested in taking care of my house/neighborhood than I ever did in all the years I spent renting
In: 6
It’s a complicated issue, and it’s wrapped up in a whole lot of politics. As such, there aren’t a lot of clear answers, and any response people give is going to have a bunch of assumptions and personal biases contained in it. Plus, everybody wants something that is “fair”, but we all have our own definitions for what that means.
For instance, I bought my house about five years ago. I worked hard to save up a bunch of money. I have worked hard to keep my house nice and do maintenance and upkeep. I got a really good interest rate, and since buying it my house has gone up in value about 50% from what I paid for it. This makes me happy. However, if you built a big apartment complex down the street from my house, this would lower my property value by a lot. You screwed up my suburban neighborhood. This would make me unhappy. I would say “that’s not fair”. But to the guy who can’t afford to move into my neighborhood, he would say it’s not fair that things are so expensive.
Now, my city is big and spread out, and it has some poor neighborhoods where maybe you don’t really want to live, but rent is very cheap. But some cities are so high density and so desirable, that there *isn’t* really a “poor neighborhood”. These cities are extremely desirable. They have the best education, the best jobs, the best shopping and restaurants, etc. This makes it so that a lot more people want to move there, which drives up the prices even higher. Rich people can outbid poor and middle class people, so they basically get first pick on where they want to live. Some very nice cities fill up with rich people, and there’s no room left for anybody else. If you were lucky enough to buy a house in that city *before* prices skyrocketed, then congratulations, you hit the jackpot. Now sell it to a rich guy and move somewhere cheaper.
But every city needs janitors and waiters, and people like that just for the city to function. And if a city gets too expensive, then those people can’t afford to live there anymore. So cities are trying to find a way to increase working class housing, without hurting the value of the super-expensive homes that their voters paid a lot of money for. Rich people don’t want Cousin Eddie moving in next door.
Latest Answers