Ron DeSantis Admin Says in New Lawsuit That the Free Market Won't Produce Affordable Housing
Florida's Department of Economic Opportunity is suing the city of Gainesville to block its legalization of small "missing middle" apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods.

The administration of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) is suing the city of Gainesville to stop its legalization of new small apartment buildings in all residential areas. Allowing more housing in existing neighborhoods will worsen housing affordability, the state argues, while straining infrastructure and upending established neighborhood character.
"It is simply illogical for the City to argue that by entirely removing the concept of lower density detached residential dwellings…it is doing anything more than helping provide housing to college students and higher income residents," reads the petition filed last week by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) in the state's Division of Administrative Hearings.
The DEO's petition, which was first reported on by The Independent Florida Alligator, contends that creating affordable housing requires Gainesville to adopt "inclusionary zoning" policies, whereby developers are allowed to build denser housing on the condition that they provide some of the new units at below-market rates to low-income renters or buyers.
Just legalizing denser construction without subsidies and restrictions needed to create below-market-rate housing provides no benefit to lower-income residents, argues the department, saying in the petition that "the 'invisible hand' of a free market operates simply in this situation—without inclusionary zoning tools, developers will not build affordable housing."
In October, the Gainesville City Commission narrowly approved a series of ordinances that allow more homes per acre and small four-unit apartments to be built on residential land citywide, including in areas where only detached single-family housing was allowed.
Cities and states around the country have adopted similar "missing middle" zoning reforms on the grounds that allowing new duplexes, triplexes, and more will make residential neighborhoods more affordable, sustainable, and equitable.
The results of these reforms have been pretty modest so far. In places like Minneapolis and Portland, Oregon, they've enabled the construction of a few hundred missing middle homes that sell for prices well below that of new single-family homes. One would expect Gainesville's reforms to have a similar impact.
That hasn't mollified the fears of activists who formed the group Gainesville Neighborhood Voices (GNV) in June 2022 to oppose single-family zoning abolition.
In written materials, letters to government agencies, rallies, and testimonies to the City Commission, GNV members have argued that Gainesville's housing problems are not due to a lack of supply per se, but to existing homes costing too much. They warn that there's no telling what the elimination of single-family zoning will do for affordability but that it "will likely be destructive to stable neighborhoods."
These complaints didn't move the City Commission, but they have found a receptive audience at the Florida DEO. In September, the department sent a comment letter to Gainesville Mayor Lauren Poe echoing activists' concerns about the impacts single-family zoning abolition would have on affordability, infrastructure, and neighborhood stability.
The DEO's lawsuit comes a few weeks after two GNV activists filed their own petition opposing the city's zoning reforms. Alachua County, which contains Gainesville, has also filed a petition to stop the city's zoning reforms.
The Florida state government plays a limited role in local zoning decisions and can typically only step in when state assets are threatened. The DEO is justifying its interventions by claiming that "affordable housing" generally is a state asset that could be damaged by Gainesville's elimination of single-family zoning.
"That's a really big leap for DEO," Thomas Hawkins, a lawyer, planner, and assistant professor at the University of Florida, told Bloomberg CityLab in October. He said a state asset is usually something like a major piece of infrastructure or an environmental resource.
Housing politics is weird. It rarely falls neatly along party lines. Nevertheless, the DEO petition is an exceptionally strange document to come from the nominally free market–supporting DeSantis administration.
Its explicit premise is that a general increase in new housing supply at market rates won't make housing more affordable and, in fact, will make affordability worse. Instead, the department argues that government regulations, subsidies, and incentives are necessary to ensure truly affordable housing gets built and gets built in the right places.
That's an incredibly government-centric view of housing affordability. It ignores both the theory and the evidence that when new housing is built, even very expensive housing, it lessens demand on existing housing stock, leading to lower prices and rents.
New missing middle housing typologies also typically sell for much less than a new single-family home. Cities that legalize them are giving homebuilders more property rights and homebuyers more affordable choices.
These improvements are marginal, but they're improvements nonetheless. DeSantis' administration is going to great lengths to stop them from happening, including making novel arguments about the expansive powers of state regulators.
The Alligator reports that the lawsuits against Gainesville's single-family zoning abolition prevent developers from getting permits to build newly legal duplexes, triplexes, and so on. The hope among anti-reform activists is that the ordinance can be delayed long enough until the new City Commission (which is stacked with zoning reform opponents) can reinstate single-family zoning.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Wow. Despite his Ivy League degrees, DeSantis is clearly a moron.
Everybody knows the free market always produces the correct result. I learned that from Reason.com, an operation that survives because its silver spoon billionaire sugar daddy keeps the lights on as long as the writers promote his financial interests.
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://www.LiveJob247.com
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK. 🙂
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
I’ve earned $17,910 this month by working online from home. I work only six hours a day despite being a full-time college student. Everyone is capable of carrying out this work from their homes and learning it in spare time on a continuous basis.
To learn more, see this article———>>> http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
If a Reason "editor" writes an article and no one reads it does it make any difference?
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
What's next; Zoning everyone's sandbox in the back-yard?
Oh wait; never-mind. Already done.
If the City can do it I guess the State can do it better and if the State can do it I guess the Federal can do it better and if the Federal can do it I guess the UN can do it better.
Bow down and worship those Gov-Gods!!
The higher and more distant they are the better they can plot everyone's sandbox.
I have been involved in development for several years. The idea that building higher density naturally creates affordability is just not true. The market decides. It is true that inclusionary policy may address this (where additional density is permitted and a certain percentage of affordable is required). But inclusionary policy only works in expensive areas, in a suburban setting it typically restricts the market because of higher development costs.
Do you know what runs housing cost to the level where affordability is a problem? Growth. That is it. It is true that regulations and labor costs raise the price, but that probably impacts developer profit or land price more. The market is the market. But growth drives housing prices higher. You can find all kinds of affordable housing in small rural towns with few jobs and negative growth rates.
These stupid policies to erase single family neighborhoods to create affordability are being supported by people that know nothing about development.
So you're saying that increased demand increases prices? What a revolutionary observation.
If I could build on your new ideas, is it possible that increasing the supply of housing would reduce prices?
We should get together and write a paper about this radical new theory. We could call it "Supply and Demand". We'll be lauded as geniuses!
Yes and the University at Orlando keeps expanding and expanding the college buildings and campus and the number of students. It creates the market and the need and creates the lack of infrastructure. The problem is that no one is telling the University to STOP and that it is done expanding the numbers.
re: "Gainesville's housing problems are not due to a lack of supply per se, but to existing homes costing too much"
How, exactly, do these geniuses think that prices get set? Yes, existing homes cost too much. They do so precisely because of the lack of supply.
The GNV members on are stronger ground when they argue that elimination of single-family zoning might "be destructive to stable neighborhoods" but they should be required to provide evidence in support of that hypothesis. And that evidence would have to overcome the rather considerable evidence of their parents' (or maybe grandparents') neighborhoods which were quite stable and even idyllic without the need for zoning restrictions like this.
And how does liberty enter into your narrative?
Liberty first, last, and foremost. Reason has forgotten that; no need to join the crowd.
An absolutist approach to liberty would require the abolition of all zoning laws. While there is some intellectual appeal to that position, it will not happen in our lifetimes.
In the meantime, even an idealist is allowed to express an opinion about which of two evils is the lesser. Requiring government to provide evidence that its plan can work before restricting our liberty is a damn sight better than the "rational basis" review that they are allowed to follow today.
One of the loudest arguments against Reason in the last several years is how low plain old liberty has fallen in their narrative. All sorts of practical discussion in articles. All sorts of political considerations, trade-offs, long term consequences, etc. Very little liberty itself.
And you seem to be of a mind. Liberty? Who cares? Impractical. Lesser of two evils. Blah blah blah.
Do you have any principles? Couldn't you at least mention liberty?
Why bother to argue about that? You already know libertarians are on your side. The people you need to convince are non-libertarians. So that's what the writing's about.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks ghf-84 online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
If starting from scratch no zoning laws are best from a liberty standpoint. But if people go into an area with already existing zoning laws it’s not so clear.
If we can't get rid of zoning laws then the next best solution is to nationalize them at the federal level. Goddamn you lolberts are fucking retarded.
That sounds like sarcasm? It’s hard to tell these days with oysters like Sarc, Pedo Jeffy, and that bitch, Dee.
OK, but how do you convince the people who don't believe that, but have the power to stop you from doing what you want, to allow you to do what you want?
Or maybe it's because interest rates have been at 0% since your chocolate messiah was in office and 10 trillion dollars worth of new credit were created, you stupid fuck.
Hey look, for absolutely no reason this guy made sure to point out skin color. Sure he's not racist though, just a liberty lover!
How is that racist? Obama’s skin does have a chocolate shade to it. How is that pejorative to simply notice that?
Or maybe you just didn’t like what he had to say and the only thing you had to attack him with was a weak, phony racism accusation.
Wokies gotta woke, right?
Go fuck yourself, Trump cultist. I know you people get off on making sure others are subjugated by your superiority, but we all know what you are.
"Hey, ma, they dun stolt muh election again. We gun it em good this here next time" I am racist as fuck against hicks like you. Get back to fucking your cousin.
Or- So the guy’s racist. What’s your point? Liberty is racist?
Oh look, DeSantis has become Reason’s new crutch. Bring in those clicks by vilifying Trump…I mean DeSantis. Feed those Kulture Warz baby!
I mean, look at the article this is written about. That article never once mentions DeSantis. It does not give a single quote about any of this from DeSantis. The article talks solely about what the Department is doing, with no indication of whether it is being driven by DeSantis directly, or some peon deep in the bowels of the Florida Government.
To be sure, DeSantis ultimately is responsible for everything that happens in the Executive Branch. But usually, it is common practice to separate the actions of an executive’s direct staff and the general environment. Look at the other articles today. They aren’t “Biden Admin Crack Down on Opioid Clinics”, or “Biden Admin’s Geofencing Warrants”- they only invoke Biden for things specifically in his purview.
All that said, this does seem like bad policy. And if DeSantis himself is behind this, it also is HIS bad policy. But the framing here is just bizarre- instead of explaining what is happening and why it is bad, the DESANTIS!!! canard seems merely to be an attempt to stir up reflexive hatred and defenses rather than discussing the issue at hand.
Yeah it be nice if they at least had a "we reached out for comment" line in there. That would give me the opportunity to know if DeSantis: blasts the bureaucrats (excellent), agrees with them (troubling) or remains silent (cowardice).
And much to my surprise - - - - - -
In the linked actual document, CTL-F DeSantis 0/0
I think it's because of all the talk about him running for President.
It is odd that Colorado can keep trying to force compelled speech but Polis is the pure libertarian, ain't it?
I agree with this perspective. The policy is bad, but there is no evidence that DeSantis has a hand in it other than being the governor of Florida.
DeSantis is probably just worried that if you allow multi-family development to sprout up unchecked, it'll attract the geys.
So what you have is the State backing NIMBY homeowners, while the city is compelling developers to build apartment units they would not normally build. I'm not sure what an unconstrained free market would do, but the City's ordinance is not exactly free market.
Reading the original article, it is not clear that the city is requiring apartments. The city just removed the single-family zoning laws. You can now build a duplex or four-plex on a plot of land, instead of only being allowed to build a single house.
Britschgi may be incorrect with how he describes the program, but if he is wrong, he has erred in a way which undermines his argument.
"The city just removed the single-family zoning laws."
I believe this is the case. It isn't mandating anything, it is removing restrictions. If I recall correctly there are also some enticements to developers who build 2/3/4 units per plot. I'm not wild about that part, but reducing zoning restrictions is a good thing in general and a benefit for developers, home buyers, and the city as a whole.
When was the last time we had a free market?
Polis did this years ago. But he is just too dreamy to have written an article about it.
This is a very complex subject, and my gut feeling here is DeSantis is probably correct, but for the wrong reasons. How I see these... *erm* Market Reforms is not so much a removal of thumbs on the scales, but a rearranging of thumbs on the scales.
Hell, we can't even get a clear definition of what "affordability" means. Does it mean that houses will become cheaper, or does it mean that new housing's pricing won't increase as rapidly going forward? Will it only affect a certain type of housing within a particular category? Does 1151 Maple Lane which has been sitting there since 1962 suddenly sell for $100,000 less than it did in 2021?
As I've posited before, this IS a bipartisan issue, and if you actually lowered property values across the board, you'd see an owner revolt like you've never witnessed.
the bigger point is that it is never the government's role to manage property or rent prices. this is well managed by the free market.
"Does 1151 Maple Lane which has been sitting there since 1962 suddenly sell for $100,000 less than it did in 2021?"
I think this is the main concern driving NIMBYism in housing. People don't understand that the licensing and permitting requirement, plus construction time, means that anything applied for today won't come online for 3-5 years.
The impact on existing housing prices will be a flattening of the growth in prices, not a lowering of prices, unless so much new construction takes place that the supply surpasses the demand once the project is completed. That is really hard to do in a market lacking the "missing middle" housing this sort of regulatory reform allows.
But it's really easy to scare people with claims that their house value will plummet. As with most conservative (as in opposing change) messaging, oversimplification evokes an emotional fear response that is only proved to be unfounded by data, charts, tables, and historical proof.
When thinking, logic and knowledge are on one side and an overstated (if not downright fabricated), low probability, worst-case-scenario-as-fact fear message is on the other side, most people choose fear. Especially when talking about an asset as significant in most people's lives as their house.
Anyone who believes DeSantis is a principled supporter of small government and local rule has simply not been paying attention. DeSantis believes that any level of government above him is too centralized and needs to defer to the level he controls, and that any level below him is too freewheeling and needs to defer to the level he controls. Whatever justifications his officers create for these decisions is simply made up post hoc without regard for any consistency. If he is ever elected President, I predict a tsunami of executive orders at a truly novel scale, especially when he doesn't have a supermajority in the legislature to rubber stamp his proposals.
DeSantis will not be president. We've fortified the elections to prevent that.
Damn right!
We are keeping him in Florida to protect us from the fascists until term limits can be repealed.
Right. There is no way the Republican candidate will win the next presidential election. Maybe not ever again.
Sure there is, as long as it's someone like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, or Liz Cheney. Election fortification is only necessary if the wrong sort of person might win.
Oh, you'd be surprised at how suddenly Liz Cheney would be characterized as a MAGA republican if she ever dared challenge a Democrat.
Her usefulness to the democrats will soon end. Then they’ll bring her before their Imperious Leader for execution, like Count Baltar.
Sarc or stupidity?
I don’t know enough about him to opine generally, and I hope it’s not true since I’m a fan of his, but on one data point your conclusion is correct: the “don’t say gay” law. He wanted the state to decide, rather than local school boards.
Sounds super scary! Do you think he might collude with social media websites and financial firms to systematically obliterate any unfavorable information about himself and cut off anyone who speaks out against him from accessing basic financial services?
If he can get away with it? Absolutely.
And he is right. The federal government is out of control, as are progressive city governments.
Good!
Just for the record, Reason is still at it.
Nothing in the article or linked filing contains the character string "DeSantis", other than the clickbait headline.
I think this site is getting the spam it deserves.
It's his administration and his appointees running state agencies. Yes, he is to blame.
Am I the only reader having trouble understanding this article? Is the issue itself confusing, or the reporting inadequate?
What's a typology? Is it just a longer word for "type"?
Looks like I have to wade into the weeds here and ask questions:
Does that mean the DEO says that the zoning reform Gainesville has adopted will lead inexorably ("require" via political pressure, lawsuit, or some other process) to the adoption of those policies, which the DEO is saying is a bad thing? Or does the DEO object that unless those policies are adopted, DEO will block the reform?
saying in the petition that “the ‘invisible hand’ of a free market operates simply in this situation—without inclusionary zoning tools, developers will not build affordable housing.”
The word “simply” in that quote confuses me. Is there some more complicated way it could operate?
Or a longer version of "typo"?
Does this work perversely as alleged about gentrification, i.e. cheaper rental units being cleared out for fewer (bigger) and more expensive ones?
The progressives plan for rent eviction control before year end:
https://jacobin.com/2022/12/biden-housing-crisis-rent-reduction-executive-order
The hope among anti-reform activists is that the ordinance can be delayed long enough until the new City Commission (which is stacked with zoning reform opponents) can reinstate single-family zoning.
So, the sound of this is that the old commission pushed through higher-density housing, the public rose against it, and now they're trying to shove it through before the new commission elected in response can do anything about it. Sorry, but this issue is tainted. We know enough about government efforts to push high density housing to know it isn't a purely organic phenomenon. And, yeah, some people do want leafy suburbs, rather than city centers. I know that's got to strike the gang here as hopelessly bourgeois, but that's why they're not all in support of the policy.
Reason has been flogging the "federalize all zoning laws" dolphin ever since Chuckie Koch and George Soros decided to rub cocks together. I'm sure Chuckie Koch would be fine with having 200 section 8 drug addicted welfare queens and gangbangers moving in next door.
On his 5000 ac ranch with private security and electric fences all around, I doubt it matters much to him who moves in next door.
What I’m getting out if this is that DeSantis is using the force of his office to hit back against various leftist efforts.
The DeFascist administration stopped being even nominally free market long ago. The new Republican right is just as eager as the Democratic left to use government as a bludgeon to achieve its desired social policy.
Go fuck yourself with a rusty fence post, shreek.
You fucking loser. You incel piece of shit. Get back to jerking off thinking about your mom.
Yes. DeSantis is a big government type. These halfwit true-believers don't care though. They have zero principles
Us "half-wit true believers" believe that DeSantis is better than the available alternatives on liberty and free markets, that's all.
You're about to have a primary season where you can put that theory to the test.
I'm going to bet that the will-to-power, culture war folks like Trump and DeSantis will pace the field with small government, fiscally responsible, culturally moderate conservtives getting their asses handed to them.
The GOP is, unfortunately, a grievance-based, pro-government, anti-liberty party at this point in history. This is about as far as the pendulum can go, so I am looking forward to the day when Reaganism is once again the guiding light of the party. Minus the Moral Majority, of course.
The problem with "Reaganism" is that Ronnie talked a good game but did he actually shut down any cabinet department, especially the one he said he was going to terminate, the Department of Education? Nope. Did he reduce the budget deficit or shrink the federal government? No.
He didn't fix the budget deficit, but I blame the supply-side "economists" who got in his ear. When he was governor of California he was about removing barriers, not corporate welfare. Somewhere along the way to the White House he picked up people who swore to him that the wealth created by cutting corporate taxes would trickle down to everyone. Unfortunately he believed them.
He did decrease the power of the bureaucracy, but obviously he failed to eliminate the DOE.
I would have preferred to see him do more over his 8 years, especially with the mandate he had after he was reelected. But the GOP Presidents since him have been increasingly heavy on the culture war and light on the fiscal responsibility. That's going in the wrong direction.
That's because he was right. Lowering corporate taxes is good. Lowering income taxes is good. Lowering government spending is good.
The only taxes that make much sense are import tariffs and sales taxes.
Lowering taxes is good if and only if you keep a balanced budget. Lowering taxes when the result is a bigger deficit is a bad thing.
Supply-siders swear up and down that cutting corporate taxes will decrease the deficit. That has never happened. Supply-side economics doesn't do anything it is purported to except skyrocket the deficit.
You want lower taxes? Fix the deficit first. Not the debt, that will take decades, but start with a balanced budget and work from there.
"Lowering government spending is good."
It's not just good, it's great. This is the low-hanging fruit to get to a balanced budget. It would be awesome if every year the administration had to eliminate programs comprising 20% of the total and could only create new programs comprising 15% of the total. Lose 5% off the budget each year and get rid of inefficient programs and spending at the same time? Win-win.
No, they mainly state that lowering corporate taxes will increase tax revenue.
Where did I say I wanted to "lower taxes" in general? I think the US should replace its taxes on productive activities (capital investments, labor) with taxes on activities that destroy value, i.e., taxes on consumption (sales taxes, tariffs).
Learn to read before you respond.
"No, they mainly state that lowering corporate taxes will increase tax revenue."
It doesn't do that, either. Never has, no matter if the tax cuts are coming from Reagan, Bush, or Trump. None of them increased tax revenues in the targeted categories. If I remember correctly, Trump's even lowered tax revenue as a whole. Which is why the deficit ballooned under his watch even though, unlike his predecessors, he didn't start (or maintain, like Obama did) a war or military action of any kind.
"Where did I say I wanted to “lower taxes” in general?"
In your last post. Or does, "Lowering corporate taxes is good. Lowering income taxes is good." mean something else to you?
"taxes on consumption (sales taxes, tariffs)"
So you are in favor of regressive tax policies and tariffs, which do nothing except raise prices for Americans? That's a combination that shouts "screw you" to the middle class in favor of trust fund babies.
How do you feel about a flat tax?
They don't claim to "increase tax revenues in the targeted categories".
Yes, it means that I want to lower two specific forms of taxation, not taxes in general. As I said in the very next sentence, I am happy with high taxes on consumption.
Correct. Americans consume much more than they produce. That's where the deficits come from. And that's the result of not taxing consumption enough and taxing production too much.
Other nations with government spending like the US have a 20-25% VAT tax, plus mandatory retirement plans, plus much higher taxes on the middle class to stop it from consuming.
No, the "screw you" to the middle class is the current US system, which is driving the country into bankruptcy. And the middle class is going to pay the price.
That may or may not be the case.
It's still better than the Democrats, who are a bunch of racists and socialists.
I don't see it that way.
In the past there were a lot of Republicans that were better than any Democrat, especially on spending. They may have had the same beliefs as the culture warriors, but they accepted that not everyone wanted to live by those beliefs.
Now Republicans have completely abandoned fiscal responsibility and small-government principles in pursuit of a coercive culture war that ignores individual liberty in favor of achieving their desired outcomes. It is unrecognizable from the party that existed in 2009.
If Republicans could get back to the party of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, they would wipe the floor with Democrats. We need to get back to that party. We need to reject the virulent culture wars and coercive legislation.
Well, color me not surprised.
The Republican party was the responsible, rational, sensible, and effective party when I was growing up. That's what attracted me to it when I was younger. As it has slowly moved away from good governance and fiscal responsibility and towards cultural authoritarianism and deficit spending, I began to see less and less of the appealing aspects of America's center-right party.
Where is the belief that people, given liberty, will choose slow, steady, sensible change? Today's GOP lurches erratically with no unifying governing principles. Unless "own the libs" and "form over substance" count as principles.
Where is the belief that controlling government spending is a boon to prosperity? Where is the belief that a government should be small, but effective? Where is the belief in the people of this country and our ability to prevail against any challenge? Where is the belief in American exceptionalism?
The GOP used to be the good guys. They used to stand for the principles that founded this country. Now they revel in bomb-throwing and shitposts.
Democrats aren't good, by any stretch of the imagination. But they aren't going scorched-earth when they lose an election.
I love my country. The GOP isn't quite sure if they do or not.
It died because former GOP members like you kept voting for huge government handouts, even when you were selecting Republican candidates. It's because most of the GOP voters, just like most of the Democrat voters, are economic imbeciles like you. Americans are greedy, entitled, and ignorant, just like you.
What you love is lots of free crap, and that's about as far as your "love for your country" goes. You clearly despise the principles the US was founded upon.
I guess you have it all figured out. Nothing like a keyboard warrior to set things straight. Well done sir!
Ok, DeSantis is absolutely clueless about Supply and Demand
no he's not. all he wants to do is preserve the R1 zoning, which is exactly what the current home owners expect. this has zero to do with supply & demand.
Yes, when given the choice between free markets and pandering, guess which one DeSantis chose. Shocking, right?
wrong. do you know who sets zoning? the government. that government has already set the zoning to R1. all this bill does is prevent dumbasses from building apartments in the R1 zones. i would be royally pissed if the zoning in my area changed and all of the sudden a builder was putting up apartments. maybe you don't give a shit about your property values or maybe you don't even own property but many of us do.
Yes, I do know who sets zoning laws (which co strain free housing markets). Local cities and counties. Last time I checked DeSantis heads the state government. Why should the state government impose zoning restrictions on a city that choses not to have them?
Also, unless this law has changed dramatically, it doesn't allow apartments. It allows 2, 3, or 4 unit buildings on a plot (du-, tri-, or quadplex). Please don't overstate things.
"i would be royally pissed if the zoning in my area changed "
Yes, this is called NIMBY. Or FYIGM.
"maybe you don’t give a shit about your property values or maybe you don’t even own property but many of us do."
I do care, but all of the building that has happened in my town hasn't lowered my property value. On the contrary, it has consistently gone up, save for when the Bush Bubble popped. And we have had almost constant building since I bought my house in 2001.
The fear that your house value will drop is unfounded. But that's usually what happens when people surrender to fear. They believe irrational things.
it's more than property values. apartments bring crime and dirtbags. i would not want that anywhere near my house. ever.
Yes, people who live in apartments are inherently criminal. Everyone knows that.
Of course this isn't about apartments, since they aren't allowed with this change, just du-, tri-, and quadplexes. Are those people criminals, too?
You are either dishonest, or a fool. Jury is out.
In what way? The "less regulation is a good thing" way? The "state government shouldn't overrule local government on local issues" way? What exactly do you dislike about my free market beliefs?
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do…..
For more detail visit the given link……….>>> http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
If one looks around at these cities with 'housing shortages' --the ones engaging in the type of leftist social destruction the 'libertarians' at Reason seem to favor so much these days, one notices a secong skein of the mantra that goes along with the chant of 'housing shortage'.
The point made about all the vacant real estate.
Because these problems go hand in hand in such cities.
There is no housing shortage. Because there have been previous rounds of densification. Densification undertaken to secure paychecks for bureaucrats and the developers connected to them.
Densification undertaken to extend state control of property.
It's why this is always done through additional regulation rather than repeal of regulation.
When lots of people want to live somewhere, the confluence of limited land and increasing population will inevitably cause "densification".
If you want to go somewhere without density-based challenges, go somewhere not many people want to live like southern Illinois, rural Nebraska, the T of Pennsylvania, New Mexico, etc. Highly desirable places end up with lots of people living there.
"It’s why this is always done through additional regulation rather than repeal of regulation."
You understand that the DeSantis administration is trying to retain regulation (and overrule locals) while the city is trying to remove regulation, right? That's pretty clear and unambiguous.
“You understand that the DeSantis administration is trying to retain regulation (and overrule locals) while the city is trying to remove regulation, right? That’s pretty clear and unambiguous.”
What is clear and unambiguous is that you are an idiot. The city is NOT removing regulation the city is CHANGING regulation to benefit some people (by providing new, cheaper housing they say) at the expense of other people who will see a loss in value of what for most is their single largest asset.
I can’t IMAGINE why the second group would be opposed to the change OR WHY DeSantis might chose to intervene in the city screwing them over.
You want to do this the right way? Easy enough. First purchase the houses on the block from the owners. Appeal to the zoning board for a zoning change. Since you own it all you are pretty much assured of your zoning change.
Of course, this deprives you the opportunity to devalue the property FIRST via legal theft.
"The city is NOT removing regulation"
Follow me here, genius. If the rule is "you can build whatever you want on your land", that is no regulation. Every restriction that is added is more regulation, creating a less free market.
When a restriction is removed, for example when 2/3/4 unit buildings are no longer banned on a single plot, that is less regulation, creating a more free market.
"who will see a loss in value of what for most is their single largest asset."
Get back to me when this actually happens somewhere. The most that NIMBY folks can say is that they think their property values increased at a slower pace than before. I have yet to see an instance where a change in zoning laws resulted in a decrease in property value. If you have examples, please share.
"First purchase the houses on the block from the owners. Appeal to the zoning board for a zoning change. Since you own it all you are pretty much assured of your zoning change."
Uh, that's what happened. Literally. This isn't a case of a developer building in defiance of zoning. The zoning changes were asked for and approved. Developers aren't going to risk their large investment by building forst and then trying to get a chamge.
Plus your "solution" is disingenuous. There is always the house across the street or the next block over, so what you're reallly trying to say is "own all of the land in the city or changes can't be made".
"Of course, this deprives you the opportunity to devalue the property FIRST via legal theft."
Again, show me where these types of zoning changes have resulted in negative property values. I haven't ever seen an example, just fearmongering. Good luck with your search!
"Affordable housing" is just another euphemism that exists to intentionally obscure the actual meaning.
All housing is "affordable". Builders don't build housing that they cannot sell to *someone*. Even $10M mansions get bought by someone who can afford a $10M mansion.
"Low-income housing" would be more accurate, but the stigma attaches and we can't have that can we?
More importantly, "low-income housing" makes it clear why people don't want it in their neighborhood, and why Democrat-run city governments want to put them into single family neighborhoods.
A single low income apartment building cancels out the votes of an entire block of single family homes. It doesn't take much to turn the suburbs reliably Democrat and government-dependent that way.
Actually it is "missing middle" housing that is trying to be addressed. Not public housing or low-income housing, but blue collar workers with families. Which is why it is talking about 2/3/4 units per plot. Houses that are possible for the average non-college-educated couple with children to own for themselves.
It makes no sense to place housing for blue collar workers in the middle of neighborhoods of people making several times as much money.
Why not? Are you afraid you might catch something?
Because they can't afford the lifestyle, shops, and amenities that I can pay for.
Cuz I'm better than they are. Got it.
The more I look at how much R1 (mainly) zoning has broken things, the more I realize one 'simple fix' (like say allowing duplex to quadplex) can't actually fix anything. We'd still have massive residential zones with miles to the nearest non-residential places where anyone could possibly want to go - but now with yet more people to hop in a car and create bigger traffic problems.
R1 hasn’t “broken” anything. R1 provides an option for those people who want to live in R1 neighborhoods. If you don’t like that lifestyle, simply live somewhere else.
There have been no “traffic problems” in any of the R1 neighborhoods I have lived in: no traffic jams, no problems parking at the supermarket or shopping center. That's one of the attractions of R1 living. And shopping is usually less than a mile away in such neighborhoods.
Traffic jams are something that occurs mainly in cities with their high density housing, because while you can squeeze hundreds of people into an apartment or condo building, they still all want to have cars, and those city streets are often smaller than what you find in R1 neighborhoods.
R1 provides an option for those people who want to live in R1 neighborhoods. If you don’t like that lifestyle, simply live somewhere else.
No it is not an 'option'. Zoning is what created that ludicrous EXPECTATION that YOU have the right to control what everyone else around you for miles can do with their land. It is a PROHIBITION on everything else that people can do with what is purportedly 'their' land. It forces people to 'buy land' in bulk - their parcel of land and the 'governance' rules of all the land around them that is also R1 zoned. The latter is what is 100% subsidized by govt. It costs nothing to an individual owner but it allows those owners a monopoly over all the governance of that bigger zone. If you drill down through muni financing you can also see why those R1 subsidies turning muni finances into, basically, a Ponzi scheme.
The suburbs are pretty much 100% R1 zoning and can never change to anything except for that post-WW2 experiment that has occurred only in the US/Canada and created by government and cronyism and subsidies. Everything about the infrastructure of those places from 'hierarchical roads' (v 'grid' layouts) to subsidized driveways (cul de sacs) to dead malls that cannot be repurposed to 'stroads' to all the other infrastructure (water, sewer, utilities, etc) that will bankrupt those munis when end-of-life is reached.
Fine if THAT were actually the places where 'people choose to live in massive R1 zones' and assuming those zones were not massively subsidized.
But that is NOT what happened in the US/Canada. Urban areas were turned into massive R1 zones after WW2. People did NOT just leave for their lily white suburbs. Part of the eminent domain and demolition for highways and 'urban renewal' was to force cities themselves into that model. 70% of Los Angeles is R1. 38% of San Francisco. 80% of Seattle. 76% of Denver. 90% of San Jose. 62% of Toronto. 46% of Montreal. 80% of Vancouver. 70% of Minneapolis. FORCING 'sprawl' and hence continuing demand for land development further and further from where 'new' city dwellers actually want to live.
The reason cities can only legally build huge apartment towers is BECAUSE there is a land shortage where duplexes etc can be built. The reason 'Main Street' died is because mixed res/comm zoning is almost nonexistent. There are no more 2/3 story blocks with stores on first level and offices/apartments above them with res blocks around them feeding the demand for small-scale shopping/work. Franchises and mega-investors want 'simple' zones with big parking lots alongside stroads - and apparently the Next Door brigade of Karens - not blocks that can change over time.
Zoning is a voluntary, mutual agreement by people about what can and cannot be done within an neighborhood, essentially a government-provided CC&R. If you are unwilling to honor that agreement, just buy somewhere else.
I’ll give you this: zoning should be abolished and replaced with CC&Rs entirely; that way, people like you cannot sweep into neighborhoods and change their preferred building and living style via political mechanisms.
R1 zones are massive sources of tax revenues for cities. That’s why cities incorporate R1 zones, often against the will of the people living there.
Yes: because that’s how most people actually want to live. They want their own house, with their own yard, in safe residential areas where their kids can play outside and on the street.
Very few people want to live in a little apartment above a bunch of shops on Main St, with homeless, drunk college kids, and noisy restaurants around them, not to mention traffic jams and parking problems. That's why Main St. died: people became wealthier, got cars, and had better options.
There is no land shortage in most cities. Furthermore, as downtowns expand, R1 zones do get rezoned, in a gradual, organic process.
Blanket rezoning of all R1 zones to allow “infill” with apartment buildings and low-income housing isn’t a necessity because of land shortages, it’s a political ploy and attack on suburban purple/red areas.
"Zoning is a voluntary, mutual agreement by people about what can and cannot be done within an neighborhood"
No, it isn't. It is a regulation and, like all regulations, is subject to change.
"essentially a government-provided CC&R"
Zoning laws aren't a contract with homeowners. Government makes no assurances and has no obligation to maintain them. Smart and sensible homeowners have no expectation that they will remain unchanged. If you think differently, you are fooling yourself.
"R1 zones are massive sources of tax revenues for cities."
All properties are a source of tax revenue for cities. R1 aren't unique or special. A 2, 3, or 4 unit building on the same plot isn't even certain to provide less revenue to the city.
"Yes: because that’s how most people actually want to live. They want their own house, with their own yard ..."
Some people do. Some don"t. Stop making assumptions about what your neighbors do or don't want.
"... in safe residential areas where their kids can play outside and on the street."
Why would working class housing change the safety of a neighborhood or the ability of kids to play outside? You seem to be making assumptions about working and middle class families.
"Very few people want to live in a little apartment above a bunch of shops on Main St, with homeless, drunk college kids, and noisy restaurants around them, not to mention traffic jams and parking problems. That’s why Main St. died: people became wealthier, got cars, and had better options."
My Main street has exactly what you said and is quite expensive. And if there were more available, devolpers would snatch it up in a heartbeat. We have bidding wars for land on Main Street (Literally. Our main street is Main Street. Not imaginative, but ut is what it is).
One developer bought an old strip mall and is building a huge mixed-zone project. They're already sold out of the units and it won't be completed for another month or two (depending on the weather).
You are projecting your own preferences onto other people and using that to justify government regulation. It's a terrible look.
"There is no land shortage in most cities."
Example A of what an "unsupported generalization" looks like. Unless you have data a out land availability in "most cities"?
'Furthermore, as downtowns expand, R1 zones do get rezoned, in a gradual, organic process."
So it's OK, but it's not? Can yiu stick to one position?
"Blanket rezoning of all R1 zones to allow “infill” with apartment buildings and low-income housing ..."
This isn't what this rezoning does. It allows for 2, 3, and 4 unit buildings, not apartment buildings. It is "missing middle" housing, not low-income housing. Your irrational fear is showing again. You should cover that up.
"... isn’t a necessity because of land shortages, it’s a political ploy and attack on suburban purple/red areas."
And you know this ... how? It seems like fearmongering and paranoia, but I could be wrong. Are you familiar with Gainesville? Is your belief based on facts?
I lived on Gainesville for a year back in the 90s, so I know more about it than you. And it was almost 30 years ago, so I don't know shit about Gainesville today.
As long as towns are small, they are determined effectively by home owners. The problem occurs when towns are incorporated into neighboring cities and local control evaporates.
Smart and sensible homeowners leave as soon as their small town becomes incorporated into a neighboring city, or as soon as the home ownership rate drops below 80%. Because when that happens, a--holes like you misuse the political process to impose your urban visions on unwilling homeowners.
"The problem occurs when towns are incorporated into neighboring cities and local control evaporates."
That isn't what is happening here. And your threshold for "local control" is ridiculously small. Gainesville is too big to count as "local control"?
If local control is a good thing, how is the DeSantis administration dictating from on high also a good thing? Those are mutually exclusive.
"Smart and sensible homeowners leave as soon as their small town becomes incorporated into a neighboring city."
Again with the incorporation? That isn't what's happening here at all, regardless of your repeated attempts to shoehorn it into an unrelated discussion.
"or as soon as the home ownership rate drops below 80%"
I'm certain (although I've never looked) that over 20% of properties in my town are rentals. With the exception of the pandemic, we have had nonstop growth since I got here in 1996. My house is worth 4x what I paid for it 22 years ago. Our main street is a vibrant business district with pricey rental units above and retail at street level. We have a large small business community, with the majority of stores on Main Street being locally owned. If it isn't a successful town, I don't know what more it would take.
"a–holes like you misuse the political process to impose your urban visions on unwilling homeowners."
Yes, reducing regulation is "misus[ing] the political process to impose ... urban visions on unwilling homeowners". Massive government regulation is a good thing, right? As long as you've got yours first, of course.
I didn't say it was happening here.
Feel free to come back when you have learned to engage in basic civil discourse and understand basic English.
The issues central to this article are regulations and local control of local issues. Yet you keep talking about incorporation as if it has any relevance to the topic at hand.
One of us is struggling to understand basic English and it isn't me.
Can I assume you understamd what non sequitur means?
People claimed that R1 zones were subsidized by cities. I pointed out that if that were so, cities wouldn't be so eager to incorporate R1 zones. In fact, many R1 zones I have been in would be eager to sever their ties with the city and become a separate town.
I'm sure to you, a lot of logical arguments must appear as "non sequiturs" to you.
R1 zoned areas pay higher property taxes, have higher incomes and net worth, and spend more.
I'm not making any "assumptions", I'm stating a statistical fact: given the choice, large numbers of people want to live in single family homes. That is why there are large areas zoned that way.
No, I am making a statement about the kind of traffic and environment that high density vs low density housing produces.
No, I am stating a statistical fact: given the choice, most people prefer single family homes.
You people made the claim that there isn't enough land in cities and hence the rezoning is needed. YOU provide the evidence.
Gradual rezoning as the character of a neighborhood changes is OK. Blanket rezoning to create "infill" in otherwise R1 residential neighborhoods is not.
Yes, those are apartment buildings.
"R1 zoned areas pay higher property taxes, have higher incomes and net worth, and spend more."
These units would be in the same neighborhood so the tax rate would be exactly the same, possibly with a higher valuation and with the added revenue from the business. So net revenue is probably higher. Also the "we're richer and spend more money" is nicely aristocratic.
Spend more? Individually, maybe. But collectively? Probably not. And as Thénardier points out, their money's as good as yours.
"I’m not making any “assumptions”, I’m stating a statistical fact: given the choice, large numbers of people want to live in single family homes."
Hm. Maybe you're right. I'll check into those statistical facts you have and see if I should chamge my position. Where did you get those statistical facts again?
"No, I am making a statement about the kind of traffic and environment that high density vs low density housing produces."
If only there was a way to keep people safe when there are cars around. I mean, every time more than 10 people get together around a moving car, someone dies.
I think that the "environment" and your aristocratic view of what working class people are is your real issue.
Finally, the housing they are talking about isn't high density. It is, literally and by definition, medium density. It's also not a bad thing.
"No, I am stating a statistical fact: given the choice, most people prefer single family homes."
Well, if you have statistics ... you do have statistics, right? Because it sounds like you are just making stuff up based on your biases.
"You people made the claim that there isn’t enough land in cities and hence the rezoning is needed. YOU provide the evidence."
I made no such claim. I don't know jack shit about land availability in Gainesville, Florida. And neither do you. You certainly don't know jack shit about land availability in "most cities".
"Gradual rezoning as the character of a neighborhood changes is OK. Blanket rezoning to create “infill” in otherwise R1 residential neighborhoods is not."
Says you, who doesn't have any factual data about what happens when slight changes in zoning laws are made. But you have a very strong uninformed opinion that you think should prevail. Hey, if you want to shill for big government and regulations, you do you.
"Yes, those are apartment buildings."
Nope. Very different things.
The tax revenue per person is lower, but city expenses per person are the same or higher.
That's like asking "how do you know that the vast majority of Americans are heterosexual". I mean, seriously, are you really that ignorant? 80% of Americans want to live in Single Family Homes.
So net revenue is probably higher. Also the “we’re richer and spend more money” is nicely aristocratic.
See above for a link. Google will give you thousands more. If you are so ignorant of basic demographic facts about Americans, you have no business participating in discussions about home ownership or zoning.
R1 zones are massive sources of tax revenues for cities.
Well considering they are 50%+ of cities of course they are sources of revenue. They are MUCH bigger cost sinkholes because infrastructure liabilities - the replacement costs - grow geometrically more by acreage or linear not volume. That would be obvious if munis used accrual accounting. But munis - like Ponzi schemes - use cash accounting. Here are visualizations of Eugene Oregon - 80% R1 zoned showing the net revenue/cost contributor/sinkhole for each land parcel and a separate R1 zoning map for same. Every city is almost exactly the same - and it makes sense why. R1 zones are quite literally non-productive land. The land itself doesn't produce revenue so the taxes per acre tend to be the lowest in the city.
That’s why cities incorporate R1 zones, often against the will of the people living there.
Cities have incorporated EMPTY LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT. That is how the growth part of the Ponzi works. The Ponzi breaks when the growth stops. R1's FORCE sprawl.
You are seeing this as an urban/suburban difference - but the percentages above show that BOTH are mostly R1 zoned - with urban R1 zones tending to be older development/infrastructure. Why don't you understand that THAT is the weakness of urban finances - and the future of newer suburban?
Suburbs aren't just "a" source of revenue, they are a massive source of revenue, because single family homes yield much higher tax revenue per capita.
That is bullshit. Infrastructure is determined by linear distances and usage, not "acreage". And high density infrastructure, like that found in cities, is astronomically expensive both because of technology and because of legal issues. Try putting in a tunnel under a city, or connect an apartment building with 200 units to power. In fact, much of the infrastructure (power, water, etc.) must be located outside of the city, leading to the need for expensive long distance connections into the city.
Property taxes are usually the largest source of revenue for cities. And it is false to say that R1 zones are "non-productive": they produce lots of value, just not value that is captured by city revenue flows. People living in R1 zones need no parks, no dog parks, no parking, little police, less child care, etc. All of that reduces expenses to the city, while having high per capita tax revenues.
If suburbs were a bad deal, cities are free to excorporate any suburbs they like: the fact that they don't tells you that they like the current arrangement.
Tax revenue per capita is a pointless measure for property taxes. And you know it.
Most of the rest of your arguments are just self aggrandizing flim flam. You're trying to turn this into virtue signaling rather than even attempting to understand it as dry boring finance.
To the contrary: the more tax revenue there is per capita, the more money cities have available. The fact that you don't know that means you're ignorant.
Really? What "virtue" am I signaling?
You're an ignorant blow-hard, JFree.
By the way, if you abolish R1 neighborhoods with building standards that exclude low income people, we will simply move to 10-20 ac lots and surround our land with fences and gates and outside city limits.
If you thought R1 land use was inefficient, that's a lot more inefficient, and cities wouldn't get any of our juicy tax revenue anymore, and little of our business as well.
Wait, you'll take your ball and go home? Do you think that no one else has a ball?
Why do you think that your house wouldn't get snapped up in a second? The city wouldn't miss your revenue, especially since with the adjustment to the home value they will probably make more if you sell than if you stay.
You can't possibly be stupid enough to think that no one else could provide the tax revenue that you do. Unless the housing market is shrinking (not a problem in places with housing shortages), you aren't any better or worse than the new homeowner.
And do you really think that people wouldn't do business in a city because they changed a zoning law? How much inconvenience will most people accept to "stick it to them"? The answer is none.
You aren't necessary, or special, or unique. You aren't an irreplacable source of revenue for a city. Aside from the paperwork, they would literally never notice you were gone.
You vastly overestimate your own importance.
Correct: I'm an average high income earner who likes to live in a neighborhood surrounded by people like myself. We don't like having trailer parks or low income housing near us. We don't like shopping in the kinds of places low income earners go shopping. And when neighborhoods change, we move. Simple as that.
When people like me move away, we go shopping elsewhere.
"And when neighborhoods change, we move. Simple as that."
And? You're like one of those people who think that a company cares if you, as an individual, are their customer. You are interchangeable with another high income earner. There is nothing about you that would make a town say, "Oh, no! Smarmy McSelfimpressed is going to move! We can't have that!
There isn't a dearth of people who are willing to buy the houses that people like you would choose to sell.
"When people like me move away, we go shopping elsewhere."
Only if they move far away. Otherwise, people will go shopping where it's convenient. Nobody blackballs a town because they changed their zoning laws. Of course, most people don't move because zoning laws have changed.
You seem to be convinced that your attitude and reaction is normal. Most people don't sell their house in a huff because 3-5 years from now there may or may not be a multi-unit house in your neighborhood. Because that's insane.
As I keep saying: I am not talking about me as an individual, but about general trends. It is a sociological fact that people like to be surrounded by others with similar backgrounds, education, and level of wealth.
Consumers in different income brackets go to different stores.
A "huff" has nothing to do with it. If you put lower income housing into a neighborhood, you change the neighborhood fundamentally: the shops, the social organizations, the schools, etc. The consequence is that high income families preferentially move out.
i would NEVER buy a house in anything but an R1 area. i don't want the other crap in my neighborhood. period.
Why would you think that people who live in du-, tri-, and quadplex housing bring in "other crap" that people who live in single-family homes don't?
Trailer parks and single-family homes flying Confederate flags are more likely to be meth labs with unemployed freelance car thieves living there than duplexes. See? Other people can do irrational stereotypes, too.
Because they are lower income. In fact, the housing Gainesville wants to “fill in” explicitly requires low-income apartments. Sorry, we don’t want low income residents in our neighborhood.
Trailer parks are not usually permitted in R1 zones. Neither are mobile homes or tiny homes on lots.
There’s nothing “irrational” about that: such homes exist aplenty. That’s why suburban R1 zones usually incorporate other restrictions that exclude cheap construction and cheap/small homes, and why we have strict code enforcement.
Gainesville is trying to do an end run around all of those.
"Because they are lower income ... Sorry, we don’t want low income residents in our neighborhood."
You're making huge assumptions about the inevitability of a downward spiral. It's almost like you don't like working people. Tell me again who the elitists are?
"That’s why suburban R1 zones usually incorporate other restrictions that exclude cheap construction and cheap/small homes, and why we have strict code enforcement."
And non-R1 zones don't have those restrictions? They don't have code enforcement? In the same city?
"Gainesville is trying to do an end run around all of those."
Yes, Gainesville is trying to do an end run around ... what, your belief that more regulation is good because it keeps those dirty working people away from you? Unless they're making your $5 latte, of course.
Did I claim anywhere that in my personal life I'm not an "elitist"? I like to be surrounded by people with similar education and similar incomes. I like to have the kinds of stores around people like me can afford.
I just pointed out that high end R1 neighborhoods currently have lots of means of keeping out the kind of low income housing you gave as an example; your example is b.s.
"I like to be surrounded by people with similar education and similar incomes."
I do, too. That's why I live in a college town and worked as a white-collar executive. But I don't denigrate or despise people who hang drywall or drive a truck for a living. I don't assume that having them living in my neighborhood would make things worse.
Enjoying the finer things in life and disparaging people who don't make as much money as you are two very different things.
"your example is b.s."
Not really. You build a lot of assumptions about the undesirability of people with average incomes living in your neighborhood (and what it will bring). I'm just calling you out on it.
I don’t “denigrate” anybody.
It’s you who is judging people as to better/worse. I’m just pointing out that moving low income people into a high income neighborhood changes the neighborhood in a way that makes it less attractive to high income earners.
I make no assumptions about lower income people being “undesirable”, I simply state a fact: they shop in different kinds of shops, live different lives, and socialize differently from higher income people. That's why we don't have a lot of mixed neighborhoods: people sort themselves out.
Oh, yes, you do. You have chosen a bohemian lifestyle, surrounded by intellectuals and starving students, and you pretend to be a friend to blue collar workers, as people like you do.
And you denigrate anybody who wants to live a quiet, suburban lifestyle surrounded by other people who have worked their way up to actually be able to afford that lifestyle.
That's an incredibly government-centric view of housing affordability. It ignores both the theory and the evidence that when new housing is built, even very expensive housing, it lessens demand on existing housing stock, leading to lower prices and rents.
----------------------------------------------
I don't get this. If I'm making 70k a year and I need a house, how is making (even an infinite amount) of million dollar homes going to address my demand for housing ? I can't buy it, I can't lease it, I can't afford the amount of rent that it would take to stay in it ... how the heck does this lessen the demand of housing stock ?
it is NOT the government's role to provide affordable housing. not in any way.
No it isn't, but no one is talking about government housing. Removing government regulations (like zoning laws) is what we are talking about.
These are zoning laws and rules restricting private developers from building multi-unit structures on single plots. Removing them is a good thing for private companies, housing availability, and housing prices.
We are talking about apartment buildings that the government requires to have mandatory low-income apartments in them.
Correct. And there is nothing wrong with that. If it wasn't zoning laws, we'd have CC&Rs to accomplish the same thing.
If you mean that it will cause housing prices in those neighborhoods to plummet, you are right. And that is why voters and home owners are up in arms about it.
"We are talking about apartment buildings that the government requires to have mandatory low-income apartments in them."
So rent control. A terrible policy, but not the hellscape you describe.
"we’d have CC&Rs to accomplish the same thing"
Yes, keep the undesirable working folks away. They might interfere with you enjoying your polo match.
"If you mean that it will cause housing prices in those neighborhoods to plummet, you are right. And that is why voters and home owners are up in arms about it."
That just doesn't happen. The worst that happens is that your home increases in value slightly slower than before. Often it makes those increases happen faster.
Home owners are up in arms because they believe things that aren't backed by facts. It is, at best, surrendering to unfounded fear.
Face it. You're a snob. Heaven forbid a plumber or roofer is able to buy a house near you.
Correct. They also bring dollar stores, strip malls, and cheap restaurants with bad food.
Yes, your point being?
I’m not worried about plumbers or roofers; those guys tend to be quite well off and tend to have political and social views compatible with mine.
I'm worried about nose-ringed social science majors working as baristas.
Horseshit. The reason existing homeowners object is because future property taxes would go UP and because life would be different than it was last year.
Yes, we don't want our property taxes to go up and we don't want our lives to change! Imagine that!
Because if more high end housing stock is built, people who otherwise couldn't afford it now can and move into it. That frees up their homes and it ripples down all the way to the bottom.
Another way to look at it is that if there are about 125 million housing units and they are almost all occupied at all times (since people don't like to have them sit idle). So, if you add more housing units of any type, more people will be housed, even if they can't actually afford the specific units that were added.
Because if more high end housing stock is built, people who otherwise couldn’t afford it now can and move into it.
---------------------
This right here. How do you move into a million dollar house when you don't have a million dollars ? If this is true, then how come the homeless aren't moving into Beverly Hills and/or Prairie Chapel ?
What magic allows people to move into high end housing if they can't afford it ? What landlord is saying "Well, now that I have 10 high end houses ... I'll let this poor scrub move into one of them for 1/10th the price" ?
I just explained it to you: someone who has a million dollars but lives in a $900k home moves into the new million dollar home. Then someone who has $900k but lives in a $800k home moves into the now free $900k home. Etc. All the way down to the $50k mobile home.
How may different ways do I need to explain this to you?
Oh, I get it now. You've invented a population of near-millionaires to justify building high end homes in the belief the magic of trickle-down economic theory will solve everything. Pray tell from where will this magical population of semi-wealthy middle-class upscalers come from ? I don't see them represented in the census numbers.
Developers wouldn’t build million dollar homes if there weren’t lots of people who can buy them.
I mean, seriously: do you think developers sit around and think "let's spend $800000 of our money building a home that nobody can buy"?
(Besides, a million dollar home is solidly middle class in many urban areas; the mortgage is about $5000/month. What fantasy world do you live in?)
In macroeconomics it is called "supply-side economics", aka "trickle down economics". It doesn't work. It never has.
Making it easier for developers to make profits on middle class housing by eliminating zoning restrictions is a more-free market that achieves a community good (affordable.middle-class housing).
Restrictive zoning laws that make building middle class housing difficult doesn't achieve the same result, regardless of what trickle-down adherents claim.
That's utter bullshit on multiple levels, starting with the fact that "trickle-down economics" is not a concept in macroeconomics but a left wing talking point.
Which is why I called it supply-side economics.
I could have used "voodoo economics" like George H W Bush did instead of "trickle-down".
Is that better, if the valid denigration of a macroeconomic theory that has never worked comes from a conservative instead of liberals?
"Besides, a million dollar home is solidly middle class in many urban areas; the mortgage is about $5000/month."
You think that $60,000 per year in housing costs is "solidly middle class"? I think you may be a little out of touch.
If you take the rule of thumb that housing should be no more than 30% of your gross monthly income, $5000 in housing costs would mean an annual income of $200,000. $200,000 is in the 93rd percentile of household income in America. In what world is that "solidly middle class"?
That rule of thumb doesn't work in major urban areas, and it doesn't apply to more expensive housing.
The median income in the SF Bay Area is $120000, and in the Seattle area $110000. The $60000/year actually are more like $50000/year because of the mortgage interest deduction. And paying about 40% of your salary for housing is reasonable and common in those areas; lots of people do it. Since their salaries go up and their mortgages stay about the same, after a few years, people don't even notice it.
You really don't know much about housing in urban areas, do you?
Oh, well if it's only the equivelent of $50,000 per year in housing costs, that's totally middle class. What was I thinking?
I didn't say anything about what the housing market looked like in cities. I was pointing out that the income required to generate $60,000 in housing costs isn't close to middle class.
You really don't know much about income distribution, do you?
No one needs to justify anything but you. Kindly explain why this change by Gainesville does not reduce existing property values and why the city should not have to compensate the owners for the illegal taking.
Of course the improvement in "public policy" justifies stealing right? What a minute .... I thought libertarians were ALL ABOUT property rights .... Hmmm.
“Kindly explain why this change by Gainesville does not reduce existing property values”
Because it never has. The potential units won’t come online for several years, so there isn’t anything to reduce property values. Increased inventory in the future is such a small percentage of total inventory that when it does come online it doesn’t create a negative value in existing homes.
The most that can be said is that the increase in value of existing homes may be slower than it would have been, but even that isn’t very strongly supported.
“illegal taking”
Yes, try to argue in court that the increase in your property value wasn’t fast enough, so a zoning change amounts to an illegal taking. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure you would get laughed out of court. And probably be the story that the judge would tell about the dumbest lawsuit they ever saw.
“I thought libertarians were ALL ABOUT property rights”
Proving that if you take a phrase and oversimplify it, you can show you don't understamd a concept and still won't have a coherent argument.
No one is infringing on your property rights by changing zoning laws.
"If I’m making 70k a year and I need a house, how is making (even an infinite amount) of million dollar homes going to address my demand for housing?"
The price of an item (such as a ritzy mansion) is not inherent to that item, but is instead determined by supply and demand. If an infinite number of mansions (i.e. 'million dollar homes') were made, they would be free and you could afford to live in one.
No, that is not what he is saying.
In a free market, the people living in a neighborhood decide for themselves what kind of housing they want, and you can be certain that they don’t want “missing middle apartment buildings” because it causes traffic, brings in low income residents, and lowers property values. We don't operate in a free housing market, and Gainesville's rule changes are not based on free market principles.
Building apartment buildings in the middle of single family home neighborhoods is merely a political attempt to turn reliably red areas purple. It is not a “free market” solution to housing shortages.
"Building apartment buildings in the middle of single family home neighborhoods is merely a political attempt to turn reliably red areas purple."
Yes, everything is a political conspiracy against conservatives.
Not at all. A lot of progressive policies are rooted in greed, ignorance, selfishness, and hate. But this particular policy is clearly politically motivated.
OK, Alex Jones. Are you going to try to sell me dick pills and survival rations next?
"In a free market, the people living in a neighborhood decide for themselves what kind of housing they want".
No. You are thinking of a local government, not a free market. In a free market, developers can build whatever housing they want on their land and sell that housing to whomever they please.
and this is why i've always lived where is zoning is 5 acres or larger parcels. no apartments or other crap in my neighborhood.
Until of course your city or county decides to rezone your area for heavy commercial. The Reason commentariat will gladly explain to you how your freedom is enhanced. (even as your property value plummets.)
Your only way out is a planned community with land use in deed restrictions. And that only until the state decides to nullify those via statute. But again, FREEDOM! (To have your property value stolen.)
Fortunately, there are usually lots of warning signs, so you just need to move in time.
In fact, there are enough stupid people that you can usually get out without losing too much as progressives have already started the destruction of your neighborhood.
This article headline is a blatant misrepresentation of this story. The proposal is for high density buildings in low density zones with a restriction that some percentage of the rented space must be for low income tenants. The DeSantis' admin response is that this would not help low income residents as the free market would not incentivize this type of development. AND THEY'RE RIGHT. The DeSantis response also correctly points out that building these types of high density buildings in low density residential will lower all the property values, for the exact same reason. This article is a bold face attempt at deceit.
I'm just glad DeSantis stands up to this crap.
Even "Libertarians" seem to have been absorbed into the progressive movement and favor government-mandated price controls on housing and the deliberate destruction of suburban living through heavy-handed government intervention.
"The proposal is for high density buildings in low density zones"
No, the proposal is for du-, tri-, and quadplexes being allowed in single plots. No one is talking about putting a highrise in your suburban neighborhood. Or apartment buildings, for that matter.
The DeSantis administration is pandering and selling out the free market. Is anyone surprised?
"Pandering and selling out the market" by fighting a city zoning bureaucracy that's deliberately limiting the free market with their building restrictions based on who can purchase/rent the properties? Sure thing buddy.
"deliberately limiting the free market"
You'll have to explain how reducing regulations limits the free market.
The only rule is you can't include the Illuminati or the grassy knoll in your explanation.
That's not what they were trying to do, and it's not what the DeSantis administration was arguing against. Re-read the article, I'm not responsible for educating you.
"That’s not what they were trying to do,"
Gainesville wants to allow developers to build 2, 3, and 4 unit buildings on a residential plot. That wasn't allowed before. Hint: removing barriers is called "reducing regulation". It's also known as "deregulation".
The DeSantis administration wants to prevent Gainesville from doing this. The state is dictating to the local government. Even worse, they are dictating to the local government in order to prevent deregulation.
"I’m not responsible for educating you."
Good thing. Your inability to understand simple things like "regulation" and "deregulation" is proof I would have been much worse off if you had educated me.
Thank SO much for your simplistic blather.
Now, the current residents and owners of those properties made investments based on a longstanding legal framework that supports those valuations. Changing that legal framework likely reduces the value of the properties. Are you in favor of the city compensating the owners for the unconstitutional taking?
"made investments based on a longstanding legal framework that supports those valuations"
If people don't understand that laws can change, they are ignorant of what laws are. If they are basing their assessment of an investment solely on the zoning laws, they are stupid investors.
"Changing that legal framework likely reduces the value of the properties."
You'll have to find an example of that, because it doesn't seem to actually happen in the real world.
"Are you in favor of the city compensating the owners for the unconstitutional taking?"
Go ahead and argue that in court. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you couldn't come close to meeting the burden for a legal taking. As I understand it from other discussions, it's a tough standard to meet.
Deregulation would be the removal of zoning, not to change one kind of zoning into another kind of zoning.
Unfortunately, you don't actually understand those "simple things".
Deregulation only refers to the complete removal of all regulations. Said nobody, ever.
The word deregulation has been used to describe a reduction of regulations for ages. It has never meant the elimination of all regulation, period.
Semantics doesn't make your position any less wrong, it just makes you seem like you don't have a coherent position.
Those buildings are going to be rentals, hence "apartment buildings".
Sure, in your world where you can say words mean whatever you want. Nobody in the real world points to a duplex and says, "look at that apartment building". Because they are different things.
There is no language in the city’s amendment that requires developers to build a certain percentage of low income residences. By contrast, the state justifies it’s lawsuit by pointing to the fact that the amendment only removes “exclusionary land use”, and doesn’t have “inclusive zoning tools”. It’s the sort of language you would expect to see from a progressive regulator in California.
I don’t think DeSantis deserves the blame here though. People have a tendency to simplify the executive branch down to one person.
Wow, this headline should win an award for deceit.
Ron Desantis does not believe the free market works because he is opposed a city wiping out single family neighborhood zoning?
It is reasonable to be opposed to his position (although I suspect that if I had just purchased a single family home because of the neighborhood, I might be concerned I had purchased a property about to crash in value due to this city action). However, saying that I believe that it would not increase housing is not the same as observing you just trashed my home valve.
Demagogue much?
I worked awhile coding for a nationally known truck rental company based here in Miami, Florida. They had a lot of H1B employees from India. One of our American colleagues discovered there were about a dozen of them sharing an appartment rental. The free market finds affordability. Where uppity brands find consumers, the generic equivalent finds others.
This is it! This is the one! you guys finally got him.
Homes are usually the biggest asset most Americans have. If someone wants to put low income housing in their neighborhood and that results in a drop in home values, people get upset.
Look at the onshore wind generators controversy in Britain - the inhabitants of London want them made, but not in London for God's sake. They need to be places elsewhere out of sight or sound.
It isn't just projects. It is urban lifestyle in general.
I live in a community with a mix of houses, appartments, condos and townhouses. My kids go to school with children across the demographic spectrum. Some do better than us, some are from families of lower means.
But the newer neighborhoods being built in our city are completely different. The residents do not allow apartments or townhouses. Their kids only go to school with kids from the same socio-economic status. And they like this. Keep in mind that even Apartments here are not projects. They are generally younger couples with one white-collar professional who is early in their career.
That's right it's about racism, a bunch of old white racist Republican voters want their neighborhoods to remain white. Segregation is no longer legal, but expensive housing prices do a good job of keeping out people of visible minorities.
And what's wrong with the Bronx? It doesn't have any old ,white, bible thumping, inbred Floridian hicks.
Thing is, unless you are rich a home is not an asset.
It's a home.
Yeah, ok. Whatever you say.
Wrong.
It may be an illiquid asset, but it remains an asset.
The main thing is that you can borrow against it. And when you consider that you could’ve been renting instead, it may be an income producer, in the money you save that way. But only once you figure your net equity and the structure of any remaining repayment plan.
Still, overriding all that is the fact that it is your home, and that you can keep it regardless of its resale or collateral value. And whether it is devalued by what's built next door or not, the money you're saving by not renting also remains the same. So Agamammon's point is well taken.
Yes, it is a home that is the most valuable thing most people own. So it's also an asset.
real property is the best way to build wealth. sounds like you need some financial help.
So people in a neighborhood that isn’t yours shouldn’t get what they want ?
What part of Gainesville did you miss?
We are talking student housing, not family apartments.
Young (fairly) wealthy drunks.
Seems racist to assume all black people cant afford nice houses.
Uh oh, Episiarch is getting angry.
"old ,white, bible thumping, inbred Floridian hicks"??? Are you talking about Reason's current slew of commenters?
My point wasn’t “should” or “shouldn’t”. Geiger said people don’t want to live next to Projects. My point is that they don’t even want to live next to slightly less affluent people.
Should people get what they want? Sure. If they are willing to plunk down the money. In general, however, these are people who want to use their ownership of one property to encumber other property owners. They aren’t saying what can or cannot be done with their own property. They are saying what people a few miles away can do with their property.
On the flip side, property owners SHOULD own the repercussions of their development. The crazy dude who went on a rampage in an armored tractor in Colorado started his list of grievances when a cement plant was built across from his property, utterly destroying his quality of life.
By and large these issues are generally caused by government abrogating what are largely local issues into major city or state issues. We aren’t talking about a local neighborhood deciding what to do amongst a few dozen land owners. We are talking about a select few officials deciding what will happen to thousands or hundreds of thousands of land owners. The asymmetries this creates cause misery to both sides. Generally people are making and advocating for decisions that impact people other than themselves. A developer has to bribe a disinterested city council person, rather than the people he wants to develop next to. A couple invested homeowners fighting to increase their property values inflict their cause on thousands of others who may not agree.
Render these things as local as possible and if a local neighborhood goes to shit, it is easier to fix by leaving the area, than promoting policy to the state or (shudder) federal level.
Actually, lying Marxist cunt, they're saying they'd prefer not to have the property they purchased under one set of legal conditions arbitrarily subjected to brand new legal conditions that would allow their next door neighbor to build an ATV park or skyrise, lying Marxist cunt.
Over the lying Marxist cunt has no intention whatever of doing it amicably. The funny part is that when he gets what he thinks he wants it's going to be his blood running in the street.
"As much as people have a right to invade other communities, those communities have a right to keep them out."
But don't you agree they have a right to allow them in?
Because that is what is happening here. Someone sold their land to someone. And that person is now a part of the community. And they are choosing to do something with that land, and the neighbors are the ones freaking out.
Let's be clear here. No developer is going to build projects in a neighborhood where they can get more for the development selling swanky appartments. Your fear of Projects is 100% a government created problem, where an SJW official stuffed a low income housing project onto some eminent domain land and people had to take it, whether they liked it or not..
I suppose a moronic, faggoty subnormal idiot, with a diseased leftist mind might believe that.
I live in a college town, as well. That is always the complaint when developers propose new housing for "young professionals". Everyone knows it'll be for students, especially in my town where the university keeps closing dorms without replacing them with new dorms. Those students have to live somewhere.
That said, new housing will decrease the cost of housing for everyone. Students aren't mystical creatures that don't need a house. They impact the cost of housing, driving it up. More housing will drive it down.
If it caters to students, so what? They are going to live somewhere in your town because that's where their college is. So they will impact housing prices no matter what.
"Over the lying Marxist cunt has no intention whatever of doing it amicably."
Right, you are an idiot, pure and simple. If you think someone is a marxist because they want to let a property owner build a building on their property instead of a single family dwelling, then you are just redefining "marxist" to be "anyone who pisses me off".
There are reasons to preserve neighborhoods, and they are valid- even if I believe there are moral reasons they ought to be overruled. The idea that those morals are rooted in marxism is absurd, and you should honestly be ashamed to have uttered such nonsense. And I am sure you are, and will never see this sock from you again, Tulpa.
Drag yourself back into your hole, you fucking cultist