4 comments

[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 23.8 ms ] thread
"What changed? The most compelling theory holds that a mixture of rapid inflation and generous federal-tax policy encouraged homeowners to treat their house as an investment, providing a strong incentive to oppose new construction."

This is the reason existing home-owners oppose building apartments and townhouses nearby. High-density housing lowers the value of their home, which costs them money. It also tends to increase crime rates. It's difficult to persuade a home-owner that they should give up some of their home's value just so that others can benefit from a larger supply of affordable housing. What does the homeowner have to gain other than thanks?

> What does the homeowner have to gain other than thanks?

A functioning market?

Is there strong evidence available that increased density negatively affects nearby housing prices? In my experience density can lead to a place being more desirable (by virtue of hosting more highly desirable amenities) so while I can imagine the correlation suggested, I can also imagine the opposite being true.
Don't forget that the current cost of owning a house will be offset by the return of capital when the house is sold. You can only calculate the total cost of ownership after you have sold the asset.