If you'd like a balanced model of housing policy, you might take an in-depth look at Portland, Oregon's land-use/housing policy. As the owner of an older home in a "historic" neighborhood there, and as someone who is also concerned about affordable housing, I think the city planning board does a good job weighing neighborhood concerns about over-building with the need for growth.
Several things impress me about Portland planning: permitting architecturally consistent duplexes and four-plexes on vacant lots in single-family neighborhoods; allowing taller buildings within two (?) blocks of major transportation routes; encouraging the building of smaller ADUs on normal-sized lots; permitting standard design small houses on split lots: https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Documents/LivingSmart-Catalogue.pdf.
Buying houses as investments (with cash) is, in my opinion (even as a landlord!), as big a factor in the housing crisis as NIMBYism. Limiting AirB&B rentals to resident owners is an emerging problem in desirable neighborhoods.
Lots of new construction in Portland--in fact, a surplus of newly built apartments (and a shortage of existing single-family homes). The impressive thing about the amount of building here is how much housing can be added even near the central city by building on empty lots or on underutilized, low-density industrial sites. It's possible to have neighborhoods with architectural integrity and an urban growth boundary that prevents excessive sprawl with sensible planning and excellent public transportation.
I'm not sure this is true. NIMBYism would certainly be unpopular with the people who will end up moving into the new homes! It's just that we don't know who they are yet.
I am super sympathetic to moving zoning decisions up the government ladder (basically, we need to emulate Japan). But voting for EVERY level of government skews white and old. So I am not really sure that democratic legitimacy is much greater at those levels. It's just that citizens have to rely more on the representatives' discretion rather than intervening directly in planning decisions. Maybe that works in practice, but it's pretty bad for people who think we need greater democracy.
If you'd like a balanced model of housing policy, you might take an in-depth look at Portland, Oregon's land-use/housing policy. As the owner of an older home in a "historic" neighborhood there, and as someone who is also concerned about affordable housing, I think the city planning board does a good job weighing neighborhood concerns about over-building with the need for growth.
Thanks. I’ve heard good things and have ben wanting to learn more.
Several things impress me about Portland planning: permitting architecturally consistent duplexes and four-plexes on vacant lots in single-family neighborhoods; allowing taller buildings within two (?) blocks of major transportation routes; encouraging the building of smaller ADUs on normal-sized lots; permitting standard design small houses on split lots: https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Documents/LivingSmart-Catalogue.pdf.
Buying houses as investments (with cash) is, in my opinion (even as a landlord!), as big a factor in the housing crisis as NIMBYism. Limiting AirB&B rentals to resident owners is an emerging problem in desirable neighborhoods.
Lots of new construction in Portland--in fact, a surplus of newly built apartments (and a shortage of existing single-family homes). The impressive thing about the amount of building here is how much housing can be added even near the central city by building on empty lots or on underutilized, low-density industrial sites. It's possible to have neighborhoods with architectural integrity and an urban growth boundary that prevents excessive sprawl with sensible planning and excellent public transportation.
Nimbyism is bad, but it is very democratic.
I'm not sure this is true. NIMBYism would certainly be unpopular with the people who will end up moving into the new homes! It's just that we don't know who they are yet.
I am super sympathetic to moving zoning decisions up the government ladder (basically, we need to emulate Japan). But voting for EVERY level of government skews white and old. So I am not really sure that democratic legitimacy is much greater at those levels. It's just that citizens have to rely more on the representatives' discretion rather than intervening directly in planning decisions. Maybe that works in practice, but it's pretty bad for people who think we need greater democracy.