Overriding local zoning to allow multi-family units in suburban neighborhoods in VA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is kind of moot since there's no chance this bill moves forward -- at least not now.

Keep telling yourself that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, there are more assumptions and limitations than that.

It's funny that people are so eager to try to shoot holes in a study by some of the world's most respected economists because it doesnt come to the conclusion they want. And yet they can't explain the first thing about how their own theory would work.

That’s because economics is fluff “science” and “the most respected economists” are often as clueless as the eager folks on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The broader point — policy goal, I think — is to desegregate certain types of suburbs that exist because of baked in racism. Basically, politicians are asking important questions about why certain neighborhoods should be allowed to go on in this firm. It really strikes a nerve regarding what so many people know is wrong but lack courage to address.

The policy goal is to enable more people to live in close-in areas by increasing the supply of housing in close-in areas.

That’s one of the goals. The other is forced integration.

There - fixed it for you.

[Anonymous]

Economist here (not the PP). The Annenberg and Kung study has some nice features, but I wouldn't put much stock in its conclusions yet. I would characterize it as being more like a first step in setting some building blocks for future structural modeling. There are still big gaps that need to be addressed.

The authors highlight the lack of migration in their model, and that's an important gap. But, I think they have a bigger issue which is the lack of a model of amenities. Their model concludes that is is more effective to improve amenities in lower-priced neighborhoods than to build more in high-priced neighborhoods, but housing is assumed to be of an identical form in LL locations, and amenities are implicitly assumed to be location-specific, but non-rival and therefore not a source of negative externalities. In the real world, different types of neighborhoods have different types of amenities. Amenities in more urbanized areas tend to be effectively non-rival and non-excludable (sidewalks, public parks, coffee shops and restaurants). But, these amenities are often only financially viable given sufficient density, and their utility to residents is itself often a function of density, because people like these things to be within walking distance. Suburban areas have a very different set of amenities (larger private lots) that can impose large negative externalities on residents of other neighborhoods by using up much of the available land for private use. Their model doesn't have anything to say about this, and their empirical methodology isn't able to take it into account at present.

In summary, amenities are heterogeneous, and spatial characteristics of different neighborhoods are heterogeneous in ways that are tightly linked to amenities. So, we can't really conclude much about the value of increasing density without constructing a model that also links the two. My strong suspicion is that if you wrote down a monocentric city model that allowed for migration and for density to increase the quality of non-rival amenities, you'd fit the data at least as well as their model, but you'd also conclude that increases in density increase aggregate utility for both high-income and low-income residents. It would do this by improving amenities for high-income residents while also increasing affordability for lower-income residents who reside in more peripheral locations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The broader point — policy goal, I think — is to desegregate certain types of suburbs that exist because of baked in racism. Basically, politicians are asking important questions about why certain neighborhoods should be allowed to go on in this firm. It really strikes a nerve regarding what so many people know is wrong but lack courage to address.

The policy goal is to enable more people to live in close-in areas by increasing the supply of housing in close-in areas.

That’s one of the goals. The other is forced integration.

There - fixed it for you.

The neighborhoods were already integrated before the gentrification took over besides McClean

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anything that gets more affordable housing, and more poor people, into northern Virginia in general, and north Arlington McLeab and Great Falls in particular, the better. I’m all for it.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The broader point — policy goal, I think — is to desegregate certain types of suburbs that exist because of baked in racism. Basically, politicians are asking important questions about why certain neighborhoods should be allowed to go on in this firm. It really strikes a nerve regarding what so many people know is wrong but lack courage to address.

The policy goal is to enable more people to live in close-in areas by increasing the supply of housing in close-in areas.

That’s one of the goals. The other is forced integration.

There - fixed it for you.

Don't worry, PP. You don't have to associate with your neighbors if you don't want to. You can keep yourself to yourself.

[Anonymous]

If I could make more money renting out to more people why wouldn't I? Now, if more people are staying in a single family unit, that is a different discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh I hate this idea.
Why don’t the new Ds (who I voted for) focus on the stuff most people want that has been stuck - gun control gun control gun control) rather than these extremist policies.

Going too far left will absolutely result in an R governor. See Maryland.

I like you. I will be voting for my first all Dem ticket next election, also based on gun control gun control gun control....

[Anonymous]

Given that the local Democrats best a hasty retreat in Fairfax County, one of the state’s most liberal jurisdictions, when it became clear that most residents wanted no part of their Maryland-style plan to redraw school boundaries on a county-wide basis to promote “equity,” it’s unlikely that state Democrats will have much appetite for Samirah’s proposal, which is mostly intended to please his higher-income white and Asian constituents in Herndon and Sterling by finding a way to relocate poor Hispanics to higher-income areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not about affordable housing. It's about a give away to developers.

This.

It is marketed as affordable housing and is politically correct to put in smaller units but the developers make more money.

The term in sticking in smaller units in existing communities is called "infill."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, there are more assumptions and limitations than that.

It's funny that people are so eager to try to shoot holes in a study by some of the world's most respected economists because it doesnt come to the conclusion they want. And yet they can't explain the first thing about how their own theory would work.

That’s because economics is fluff “science” and “the most respected economists” are often as clueless as the eager folks on DCUM.

Economists are respected by two kinds of people: 1) other economists, and; 2) the folks who stay rich from the “models” they construct in their ivory towers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about affordable housing. It's about a give away to developers.

This.

It is marketed as affordable housing and is politically correct to put in smaller units but the developers make more money.

The term in sticking in smaller units in existing communities is called "infill."

The people who move into those units also benefit, no?

Just like you benefit from the developer-built unit you live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about affordable housing. It's about a give away to developers.

This.

It is marketed as affordable housing and is politically correct to put in smaller units but the developers make more money.

The term in sticking in smaller units in existing communities is called "infill."

Who else is going to build housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Economist here (not the PP). The Annenberg and Kung study has some nice features, but I wouldn't put much stock in its conclusions yet. I would characterize it as being more like a first step in setting some building blocks for future structural modeling. There are still big gaps that need to be addressed.

The authors highlight the lack of migration in their model, and that's an important gap. But, I think they have a bigger issue which is the lack of a model of amenities. Their model concludes that is is more effective to improve amenities in lower-priced neighborhoods than to build more in high-priced neighborhoods, but housing is assumed to be of an identical form in LL locations, and amenities are implicitly assumed to be location-specific, but non-rival and therefore not a source of negative externalities. In the real world, different types of neighborhoods have different types of amenities. Amenities in more urbanized areas tend to be effectively non-rival and non-excludable (sidewalks, public parks, coffee shops and restaurants). But, these amenities are often only financially viable given sufficient density, and their utility to residents is itself often a function of density, because people like these things to be within walking distance. Suburban areas have a very different set of amenities (larger private lots) that can impose large negative externalities on residents of other neighborhoods by using up much of the available land for private use. Their model doesn't have anything to say about this, and their empirical methodology isn't able to take it into account at present.

In summary, amenities are heterogeneous, and spatial characteristics of different neighborhoods are heterogeneous in ways that are tightly linked to amenities. So, we can't really conclude much about the value of increasing density without constructing a model that also links the two. My strong suspicion is that if you wrote down a monocentric city model that allowed for migration and for density to increase the quality of non-rival amenities, you'd fit the data at least as well as their model, but you'd also conclude that increases in density increase aggregate utility for both high-income and low-income residents. It would do this by improving amenities for high-income residents while also increasing affordability for lower-income residents who reside in more peripheral locations.

Why do you find it necessary to write a lengthy treatise on here when your conclusion is nothing more than a suspicion? This is why many people think economists are blowhards.