Then, you're turned into a renter against your will, and also, everyone else needs to find new housing at the same time, so even before the new luxury units go up, the rent skyrockets.
Poor people with expensive homes can't defend their ownership. That takes paying expensive lawyers
If they leave immediately, rather than struggling to pay their massively increased property taxes, then mortgaging their house to keep up...
> by limiting property tax increases, California’s prop 13 is like a wealth SUBSIDY
...which apparently is a good outcome?
If they can push people out of houses regardless, theyre still going to go for the houses.
It'd be better to redirect demand elsewhere, so the wealthy people can build their own infrastructure and community rather than co-opting an existing one
The GDP isn't a magical number that rises by making people suffer. It rises because NIMBYs are unable to force others to struggle by keeping them out of their economically advantageous land.
Similar land is all over the place
Eminent domain is another.
Why not worry about renters though? Are they not people?
That is too far away. That may or may not happen
In the short term, the supply just increases significantly. Probably also the traffic and other infrastructure use.
Not that I disagree or agree with nimby. Just pointing it out because you only point out one side.
On the infrastructure side, its a much better deal for you as well, the combined value of all the property taxes from the apartment buildings will be way more than if that lot had remained a house. Since the road, water, sewer and electric lines are already in place nothing new has to be built. You benefit from all those property taxes coming in from the apartment building while the liabilities to the government have barely increased. The local government can use this new surplus of taxes to build new amenities for you.
For traffic, sure but that's why you want to build more pedestrian friendly neighborhoods and public transit so people don't have to drive everywhere. Once you have enough people in a place you could open small shops so they can hang out around the building rather than drive everywhere.
> someone would come in and buy it off your hands for a huge premium.
This is still a far future.
> If your house was rezoned for apartment buildings and the demand existed
It's still better for you that only demand exists, but not supply.
To be honest, I doubt nimbyists are even interested to move. They just want their neighborhood to stay relatively the same (quiet, fewer people, safe, less crowded).
Either way we look at it, this kind of points are likely cons, not pros.
> sure but that's why you want to build more pedestrian friendly neighborhoods and public transit so people don't have to drive everywhere.
I laughed a little, assuming this is a US city.
Again, I don't own a house, so it's not that I agree or disagree with nimby. But I can understand why nimby hates new buildings next to their houses. It's just a lot more cons than pros.
Extraordinarily wealthy people are going to be willing to pay a premium for a nice house in Manhattan, and extremely wealthy people are exponentially wealthier than moderately wealthy people, so you cant get that back in volume.
or it could mean a developer was very stupid to overbuild somewhere, or more likely it's a shell building used as a money laundering scheme for organized crime (See https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/17/trump-ocean-... for one such building built by Trump; such buildings are also often structurally unsafe such as the building in Florida that collapsed which was also started as a money laundering front). I'm not down with this "the free market will make sure everything is OK" idea.
As for structural safety, no one is arguing to reduce building codes or safety regulations so that's just a straw man argument. If an apartment building is built unsafe then the government should have done a better job inspecting and enforcing/expanding their regulations, it's not really an argument to not build.
