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
There are multiple supply vs demand factors that are important to keep in mind.
At the simplest level, one driving factor is the belief that having more housing available will make all housing more affordable simply because there is a larger supply.
But that’s never going to “just happen” on its own, because real estate developers are in business to make a profit. They won’t build enough new housing all at once to force prices to drop.
There are two main ways governments can get developers to build new housing that might lower housing costs.
One way is to pay them. Cities, counties, etc. can spend money to reduce the costs (and risks) of building affordable housing and guarantee that developers will make a reasonable profit. Governments often do this by creating “redevelopment agencies” focused on building denser housing close to public transit. ETA: Changing zoning rules to allow denser housing / more apartments can accomplish the same thing without the city having to spend its own money. Letting developers build denser housing than before gives them a way to make a larger profit from new construction.
Another way is to use the government’s power of “eminent domain” to force property owners to sell their property at prices set by the government so that developers can knock down whatever is currently there and build something new. Doing this screws over existing property owners. That’s risky for elected officials to do if they’re worried about getting reelected, so it doesn’t happen very often. But by not requiring developers to negotiate with existing property owners, it can reduce the cost of the project by a lot. That way the developers can still make a big profit without having to build expensive housing.
Meanwhile, almost every city wants more housing because more housing equals more residents and more residents equals more tax revenue. The primary exceptions are affluent communities who don’t want any less affluent residents. But even those communities want new housing built nearby because their schools need teachers, their stores and restaurants need workers, etc. And those people need to live close enough nearby that the commute is worthwhile.
ETA: Ultimately, it’s not a Faustian bargain because no policy makers expect new construction to actually reduce the cost of housing in a meaningful way. Making housing more affordable is simply a common justification because housing costs are such a large percentage of the cost of living.
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.
Allowing more construction of apartments can indeed be a Faustian bargain if what’s being constructed is market-rate housing without requirements for low-cost units. Without government intervention, construction companies will build whatever maximizes return on investment. That’s usually not affordable housing, it’s luxury apartments that do nothing to reduce home prices for the people who actually need help.
Density is important, yes, but it isn’t the end-all, be-all.
Latest Answers