The early part of this post seems to ignore that NIMBY literally means “not in my backyard”. Why would anyone be clamouring for more housing or more infill development in their own backyard? It’s in the name.
The problems is of course that everyone sees the problem, they just want the solution to occur elsewhere (or add in your other pet causes like X% social housing or government built or Y% of tenants are refugees, or what have you)
Yes, typically what a properly designed Land Value Tax could do. If you pay your taxes on the value of the land you basically only partially owns it. And you are more willing to see its value decline (the concentrated cost is shared among all taxpayers who see tax revenues decline).
What if there is a tax incentive/differential to agree to be in an YINBY area? For example 1.5% in NIMBY, and 1% in YIMBY? Let people elect their choice, AND pay for it.
Under this option, where do the current owners live during the construction period? Would temporary housing nearby be part of the bargain? If the local area already has a shortage of housing, would the current residents be forced to live in another area temporarily?
Nice article. One point I would make though is that although it's true that most people want more houses to be built and also for house prices to decrease, people don't always necessarily see the link between the two. That is to say, some people who want lower house prices, (wrongly) don't believe that building more housing can help curb prices. Similarly, it's possible that some house owners who might want prices to go up don't object to more housebuilding elsewhere on the basis that they don't think it will affect house prices. More rationally, they might also just conclude that price changes will be minimal and it would probably just reduce the rate of house price inflation.
And yet nimby's are only too ready to complain that schools, shops, pubs, etc in their area are closing through lack of customers. And/or that their children can't afford to buy a home in the area. Bizarre.
Encouraging bargaining make sense, but it doesn't address the fact the costs are very concentrated, whereas the benefits of many projects are thinly spread out. A new highway helps many commuters, but few individuals who stand to benefit would bother giving input even if it were solicited.
The SFZ and land readjustment mechanisms mentioned in the piece offer concentrated benefits to locals engaging in densification, so they are incentivised to bargain. I think it's land readjustment that would be used for the highway issue.
The early part of this post seems to ignore that NIMBY literally means “not in my backyard”. Why would anyone be clamouring for more housing or more infill development in their own backyard? It’s in the name.
The problems is of course that everyone sees the problem, they just want the solution to occur elsewhere (or add in your other pet causes like X% social housing or government built or Y% of tenants are refugees, or what have you)
I'm very happy for development to happen in my backyard if I get to share in the benefits, but not if I am simply expected to suck it up and bear it.
Yes, typically what a properly designed Land Value Tax could do. If you pay your taxes on the value of the land you basically only partially owns it. And you are more willing to see its value decline (the concentrated cost is shared among all taxpayers who see tax revenues decline).
Brainstorming…
What if there is a tax incentive/differential to agree to be in an YINBY area? For example 1.5% in NIMBY, and 1% in YIMBY? Let people elect their choice, AND pay for it.
Great piece and I like the sound of SPZs. They seem similar to Street Votes but at a greater scale.
Interesting idea.
Under this option, where do the current owners live during the construction period? Would temporary housing nearby be part of the bargain? If the local area already has a shortage of housing, would the current residents be forced to live in another area temporarily?
Nice article. One point I would make though is that although it's true that most people want more houses to be built and also for house prices to decrease, people don't always necessarily see the link between the two. That is to say, some people who want lower house prices, (wrongly) don't believe that building more housing can help curb prices. Similarly, it's possible that some house owners who might want prices to go up don't object to more housebuilding elsewhere on the basis that they don't think it will affect house prices. More rationally, they might also just conclude that price changes will be minimal and it would probably just reduce the rate of house price inflation.
Research article on this:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4266459
Only for FT subscribers (sorry):
Repeat after me: building any new homes reduces housing costs for all - https://on.ft.com/3PEGBEZ via @FT
And yet nimby's are only too ready to complain that schools, shops, pubs, etc in their area are closing through lack of customers. And/or that their children can't afford to buy a home in the area. Bizarre.
Encouraging bargaining make sense, but it doesn't address the fact the costs are very concentrated, whereas the benefits of many projects are thinly spread out. A new highway helps many commuters, but few individuals who stand to benefit would bother giving input even if it were solicited.
The SFZ and land readjustment mechanisms mentioned in the piece offer concentrated benefits to locals engaging in densification, so they are incentivised to bargain. I think it's land readjustment that would be used for the highway issue.