The common belief that people oppose new housing to protect property values is likely wrong. A more rational explanation is that residents are protecting their existing quality of life from negative externalities like noise and traffic. Pro-housing arguments should therefore focus on improving neighborhoods, not shaming residents.
Related Insights
The most powerful voting bloc—homeowners—is financially incentivized to oppose new housing development that would lower prices. This political reality means politicians cannot address housing affordability without alienating their core voters, leading to policy stagnation and an intractable crisis.
The difference in home price trends between US regions is not about weather or jobs, but housing supply. States in the South and West that permit widespread new construction are seeing prices fall, while "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) states in the Northeast and Midwest face shortages and rising prices.
A 1969 UC Berkeley study by Donald Appleyard revealed a direct correlation between car traffic and social isolation. Residents on streets with heavy traffic reported almost no interaction with neighbors, while those on light-traffic streets had significantly more friends and acquaintances, quantifying how cars erode community.
Local city governments are often captured by "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) homeowners who block essential development. A practical solution is to elevate planning and zoning authority to the state level. States, motivated by tax revenues and broader growth, are inherently more development-friendly.
Policies intended to curb luxury development, such as a construction freeze, have a counterintuitive effect. They transform the existing luxury housing stock into a limited, finite resource. This artificial scarcity dramatically drives up prices for those assets, making them 'gold' and potentially worsening inequality.
Housing scarcity is a bottom-up cycle where homeowners' financial incentive is to protect their property value (NIMBYism). They then vote for politicians who enact restrictive building policies, turning personal financial interests into systemic regulatory bottlenecks.
A mix of old and new buildings is crucial for a vibrant neighborhood. Because new construction is expensive, it drives up rents, excluding smaller businesses and lower-income residents. Older buildings provide the affordable spaces necessary to foster a diverse economic and social ecosystem.
Urban features like decorative knobs on walls are designed to prevent loitering. By disguising their hostile purpose as aesthetics, property owners avoid public conversations about homelessness and the use of public space, effectively shuffling problems around without addressing them.
Politicians at all levels actively restrict housing supply through zoning and other policies. This is not incompetence, but a deliberate strategy to protect and inflate property values, which satisfies the large and reliable homeowner voting bloc, ensuring re-election at the expense of renters and future buyers.
The most effective solution to the housing crisis is to radically increase supply by removing restrictive zoning and permitting laws. Government interventions like subsidies often create market-distorting bubbles, whereas a free market allows builders to meet demand and naturally stabilize prices.
