I came to the realization that gentrification has led to me living in between homes several times during my life time. I would other wise be working at my micro business if I had a stable home. But instead, (and this is ironic), I've been staying in Airbnbs so that I don't end up in a homeless shelter. It's nearly impossible to find transitional housing.
''Houston doesn't have zoning laws.'' Houston has a planning and development agency that controls aspects of land use. For example: '' The Department checks subdivision plats for the proper subdivision of land and for adequate street or right-of-way, building lines and for compliance with Chapter 42, the City’s land development ordinance.'' ''Development site plans are checked for compliance with regulations that include parking, tree and shrub requirements, setbacks, and access.'' it's not a free-for-all. just sayin
Yes, exactly. For some reason this myth that Houston doesn’t have planning continues to exist. It’s not more or less zoning that’s the problem. It’s the wrong type of zoning codes that create the problems.
Houston appears to have available land around it and it continues to expand outward with single family homes, so it has bad commutes and doesn’t have walkable communities that make sense for urban areas. Those factors need to be considered when deciding how to set land use and zoning controls for urban areas. Not a free for all, and not ridiculously complex requirements-instead apply ones that make it easy to build denser housing close to transit and develop walkable areas with good parks.
I was wondering if City Planning was going to be mentioned. Tangentially I suppose. The effect of car centricity should probably be mentioned, at least in passing.
this channel was funded by the Cato Institute (the Koch brothers), the libertarian think-tank that owns this channel has billionaires and fervent capitalists on the board of directors, and they haven't disclosed their donors in almost a decade. the whole channel is just right-wing propaganda. of course they aren't going to get into the real problems.
@@Parker307 younger libertarians are leading the push for zoning deregulation. Older libertarians like that crazy fucker Randall O'Toole have went full batshit NIMBY.
Building codes included. I wanted to build a log cabin with wood felled from the property in a rural area but thats illegal. Not 1500 sq ft min? ILLEGAL! non "graded" wood? ILLEGAL! Not connected to grid? ILLEGAL! And so fourth. Because someone living in a simple home, out of sight, and with no interaction with the urbanite still outrages them. In their minds, such people should not be allowed to exist. How dare they not have x number of outlets per linear foot of countertop?
@strangelyukrainian7314 "so long as it’s safe" means you want government bureaucrats and regulations preventing people from building to what ever the arbitrary definition of "safe" is. For example I think in cali the permits are 10's of thousands of dollars to even get permission to build on your own property, all in the name of "safety" apparently.
@strangelyukrainian7314 All government bureaucracies enforce petty rules and the will torment others endlessly. You create a hypothetical scenario to justify giving unaccountable individuals the ability wield the states monopoly og violence against others. This is a slippery slope. If this Boogeyman hypothetical situation actually happens of someone dumping then that can be litigated privately. You don't need gov for that
Nimbys in Florida just blocked a massive apartment complex (4 300 ft 20 story buildings) with a massive convention center near where I live which is going to hurt the economy. The area where its planned to be built is a mix of poor whites and upper middle class people moving in taking advantage of low prices (500k or so per a house which is low for central Florida) yet these rich boomers from downtown are blocking the development. So they're basically artificially increasing the housing price, taking away jobs for low income individuals, and causing the city to turn blue because they're to stupid to realise only rich Democrats will be able to afford to live there if nobody is allowed to build affordable housing. The FLDot even built a 2 mile highway so that the main road would connect to FL-429 (connects to I-4, TFL-414, turnpike, Disney, etc). At least the developer has enough political capital to push the project through eventually but if this was a corrupt Democrat city it wouldn't be happening. The state of Florida wont allow them to block it in my opinion because they can't have the message out that Florida is anti development (states economy depends on developers and a growing population). Voting Republican or Democrat is meaningless because that city is red yet they're still acting like Democrats
Most nimbys are liberal white women , a great example was marthas vineyard when they flew the migrants in...i also grew up in California...all those people with "racism has no home here" picket signs on their lawn are ironically the same people who will do anything to keep minorities out of their neighborhoods
NIMBY is silly because the changes desired by others is NEVER in your backyard (one word, not two for initials!). It's more like "Not Anywhere Near Me".
Short sighted thinking, it does come in to your backyard eventually...itll also exit through your front door if your city gets urbanized enough over time. People know how crime works, everyone wants to be kind, the issue is kindness is never returned with kindness.
It only makes sense to have a home and everything you need (shopping, doctors, fun) within walking distance. Don’t separate them or else you need to go across town to get a haircut
Small price to pay for less crime, i grew up in san francisco and had to move to a smaller town just for the peace of mind. i never have to lock my doors here, but in sf i was always stressed about my car being broken in to. Unless youve lived that life you will never understand.
Instructions unclear: removed zoning, now my neighbor is a Toyota dealership. We are trying to have a nice, quiet Christmas but the neighbors are celebrating Toyotathon for two months
Here is one I would love for y’all to do a video on How come in America a 1099 worker has to pay a minimum of 25 percent down payment In order to buy a home while a w2 worker can pay 3 percent
@@thadoc5186 no job is stable and the fact is that 33 percent ( give take ) of all jobs are 1099 and by far more people live in poverty by working w2 jobs because there more limited down to what they can make
@@stevemanning9576 It's easier to fire a 1099 worker. They're a contractor and they can be let go at will. Thus the job is less stable, and a bank will want a higher down payment.
@@thadoc5186 if someone wants to fire you there going to true you may get that extra week or 2 but if someone is a 1099 that means there willing to go out and do whatever it takes in order to make things happen while true a 1099 is more likely to “ fail “ there still willing to do whatever it takes to get whatever taken care of where as far as a w2 worker is more willing to slack off and not get things taken of
Low interest rates with low loan to value ratios which effectively leverages people's "profits" and inflates the market. Governments prop up bubbles with money printing, low interest rates (themselves enabled by fractional reserve banking meaning the bank also leverages, so can afford to offer lower rates - which is good but also not because it inflates the money supply....). Anyway, long story short if you "own" a property it's a gravy train, if you rent you are a serf. By the way, the UK and many places outside if US I guess, don't have zoning laws in the same sense, but the same issues persist. Money is correctly seen as not being a reliable store of wealth, thanks to inflationary government policies and deficit spending. Property is where people invest. I don't think changing zoning laws fixes that. In fact, I would hope older buildings or historic neighbourhoods are in some way protected to save their character from overdevelopment at the hands of "the market". Location, location, location... as we say in UK, it's where the value in property lies. It makes sense that older nicer places in central areas would outpace price growth in soulless endless suburbia.
i don't think reducing zoning is the only way to achieve that goal. vienna in austria has very specific zoning rules and the city's government changes the zones rapidly. for example mixed use is explicitly part of some zones and zoning is intentionally used to increase density. you are probably having a hard time finding another city anywhere in the world with that amount of affordable housing per capita
Been to Vienna last year, beautiful city...not very diverse...very low crime rate. The laundromat was completely coin operated with not a single soul around and I could do laundry at 1 am. You cant do that here in san francisco or new york you will be robbed or killed. Theres a reason why nimbys are a thing, everyones afraid of their towns and neighborhood turning into a crime zone
And that's exactly the point - Vienna changes their zoning codes as they see fit. Zoning codes in most US cities are completely frozen in time, since people in single family homes refuse to have their areas rezoned, even if they're near transit hubs and newer developments.
As a Chicagoland born person, *_Pizza must be eaten with a fork and knife._* Death by a thousand cuts. Just keep over correcting. Duct tape will solve all problems.
@@ehanneken classic libertarian argument 9473, there are separations of powers and responsibilities for a reason. If a city chose to restrict access, in theory, they could, but it would not be beneficial. Our national borders are not the same thing as our cities, however, and just letting anyone in is not only a danger to those living near the border but also those in the cities where they live as they are unaccountable to our laws. I grew up surrounded by illegal immigrant farm workers and they caused many problems in the community and in our schools. And don't try the "immigrants are less likely to be criminals" nonsense as it is a lie because it combines legal and illegal immigrants into the same bucket.
@@RealCaptainAwesome I disagree with you about illegal immigrants and crime. But regardless of the relative numbers, some native-born Americans do commit crimes. Shouldn't you be in favor of city governments screening their borders against them? Why would that not be beneficial to residents?
High property values also encourage home improvements, ie further gentrification. It's all a bit of a ponzi scheme as society is generally in the west. Central bankers etc to blame
If zoning were more limited, it would make sense. Like we know all land can be: 1) natural; 2) park; 3) residential; 4) commercial; 5) industrial; 6) farming/agriculture; 7) mining/timber.
Houston doesn't have zoning per se, but we do have minimum house sizes per lot size. A lot of our gentrification was accelerated when they allowed more house on less land inside the Loop (610). They later allowed more house on less land inside the Beltway (8), but that hasn't taken off at quite the same speed yet.
@@piglet7943 they changed it for inside the loop over a decade ago (back when it started to get rebuilt) and outside the loop but inside the beltway about 5 years ago (which is why there's so much redevelopment there the last few years). I haven't heard of and recent changes.
On the other hand, if you live in a South American country like it do, you can have an upscale apartment right next to a saw mill that's right next to a night club, that's right next to a bus terminal. You will not get any peace and quiet. So I think that zoning is necessary, but should be done better.
I'd think that perhaps having to deal with some noise is better than being homeless. Once you have a home you can start saving to soundproof your home should you desire. Plus I'm not sure how "upscale" an apartment is if you have to deal with persistent loud noises. You'd think such things would bring down the price.
@@cleverwitticismhere6922 Not everyone is homeless nor are people aspiring to be home less. For most people it isn't one or the other, homelessness is often the exception
To me, zoning and NIMBYism have always been part and parcel to self determination. That is, it's only a problem insofar as people engage in it and then demand *you* do not engage in it. But if San Francisco wants to be nothing but 3 story townhomes with no high density housing, then San Francisco can do it -- and they'll have to live with the fact that they've displaced the service industry that they also consider integral to the value of the city. So yeah, lose the bullying and the projection and NIMBYism is perfectly fine in my eyes. Oh, and don't act confused when your zoning regulations have pushed all of the landscapers, baristas, and waiters out of the city.
Who is the "self" in what you're calling "self determination?" Clearly it's not a property owner who wants to develop his land in a way that the zoning rules outlaw. In that case, the law says, "No, you may not determine what is built on your own property."
@@ehanneken also the landscapers baristas and waiters will still be working in the city. They will just have to commute from the outskirts, making their lives that much more difficult. Cities should make room for all classes of people that support the cities economy.
Yes, but should those cities be forced by an external power to do so or is that a lesson they should learn on their own-however painfully, @@rhdufflebunny ?
@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 history has shown that those with power over others do not change how they operate unless some force, external or internal forces them to. Given that our system is highly effective at directing internal strife in ways politically expedient for those in power while crushing any will by the people to effect change for their benefit I don't see anything changing.
They mean the Bruce value could have enjoyed and benefited from that increased value of the land during the past 80 years or so instead of having to wait until now.
How are YIMBYs any different from NIMBYs? NIMBYs use the laws to protect the character of the neighborhood. These people are invested in their neighborhoods. This is what made these neighborhoods desirable. YIMBY’s come in with the lie of affordable housing to change the laws and overrun these neighborhoods with their own plans. Who is the real hypocrite? Also, it is not about white rich white people vs minorities. Take the case of Bob Tillman who spent years and millions of dollars on a legal battle to turn his coin-operated laundromat into an apartment building in the San Francisco of the Mission. The neighborhood is one of several neighborhoods that is home to a working-class, Latino community. The Latino community was determined to stop gentrification in the Mission, so they completely blocked the project. If the real point is to build affordable housing, there is no need to build in established "desirable" neighborhoods. There are plenty of rundown neighborhoods in these cities that could use a refresh with NEW affordable housing. Why don't the YMBYs take their money there IF affordable housing for the poor is the point of all this.
We have a free rider problem or a Tragedy of the commons. Think the Bible Story about mana from the sky. People started hoarding and the mana dwindled even though there was plenty for everyone. Every area basically wants to keep new people out. In the case of housing, there is a squeeze of NIMBY suburbanites and the anti gentrification NIMBYs. YIMBYs are for development in both areas - gentrification that makes the place nicer, and densification of the suburbs so more people can live there. The fears of both NIMBYs make sense. If a suburb densifies with apartments, row houses, it will bring in more people who previously couldn't afford - usually poor. If gentrification takes hold, it will make the place more desirable, more affluent people will come in, and eventually rents will be less affordable. Gentrification without densification of the neighboring suburbs puts the squeeze on the current urban dwellers. Where would they go? Densification of the suburb without gentrification seems like a wasted opportunity as you mentioned. Housing abundance requires every location to allow some development. YIMBYs do not have money, they are simply advocates. It is private enterprise that has money and develop property. YIMBYs are about the freedom of individual land owners to build and reap the economic benefits of providing more housing that the society demands.
The people that try to stop development in the urban are because they’re afraid of gentrification are also NIMBYs. In a more natural economy, the rich tend to live in the center of town while poorer people live in the outskirts and commute in. Think of Manhattan, London, Paris, Singapore, practically all major cities outside the US. The most valuable real estate is in the city centers. In the US, the city center is seen as more crime ridden. We need to let a freer market take its course. Many suburbs close to city centers are ripe for densification, that it to say, the market deems the land as too valuable to just be for single family homes. More people are willing to pay good money to live there. Other types of housing makes sense like duplexes, bi houses with over 5 rooms, bungalo courtyards, small apartments, ADUs, etc. Many urban areas are ripe for gentrification, meaning that the real estate is too valuable to just left to urban blight. Nicer apartments to replace vacant dilapidated buildings make sense economically. People are also willing In both areas, we need to allow private enterprise to do its thing which is to realize the best value for land.
Solid video, but your take on homelessness is not accurate. The stats bear out that the overwhelming majority of people living on the street are addicts, suffering a mental health crisis or both.
Umm, if it's easier for a developer to develope anything, it's not gonna be affordable housing unless you incentivize that. That's gentrification. Rooming houses aren't really gonna make people feel good about the policy either.
Very few new buildings are affordable. A building built in 1970 would have been pretty expensive to live in in 1970. Today, however, a building built in 1970 is probably a more affordable place to live than the ones built today. To have more affordable housing you need to allow luxury buildings to be built too, as 50 years from now those will be more affordable.
Remote working has debunked the "people want to live in dense cities" theory. When given the option to leave a city and live in spacious rural areas, humans prefer fresh air. The good thing is that as businesses need less office space in cities it does open the door for more residential in their place, and maybe a healthier city option for those that like to live like sardines.
People just want to work on their pyjamas, not having to commute, put up with annoying co-workers and have the boss around all the time... that's the main drive of remote working. You can do that from the city the same.
@@soundscape26 Right now we are seeing a migration from the city by remote workers, but a lot of that is probably cost base. Once enough office space is converted to residential, and COLA for cities drops, maybe we'll see a return. A lot of unknown to be sure.
Only in the US. In thw rest of the world people are still moving into cities, because all the amenities are there, as well as the fast internet connection needed for remote work .
"Less likely to live in too much house. More likely to live in cramped apartments." Who gets to decide what is "too much" house? Why is cramped apartment living desirable??? 🙄
8:39 Aren't you conflating two issues here? One is the lack of small businesses in walking distance of a community that make it a living place. Another is having folks with different life styles sharing a neighborhood. Different concerns in my book.
How dare you disparage the great democrat Mayor Dailey Put some respect on his name He worked wonders for Chicago Gentrifiers tend to ruin the many minority neighborhoods they try to overrun
We have a massive problem. And that problem is that this uploader is not addressing the monumental problem of political and economic ideology. He needs to talk to the Leftists who support, draft this legislation and vote for it. They are ideologically entrenched in these policies. Let's broadly look at his arguments against them that are grounded in reality. Supply and demand? Leftists are going to say that smacks of capitalism. Which is de facto fascism. Needs shouldn't be dictated by the regime of capitalism. We all need to be working to the socialist Utopia. What about incentives? He lives in the world of reality. Where the developer and the construction trades want to earn a paycheck. The Leftist is going to say we can't base such an essential need like housing on something so morally repulsive as the profit motive. We have to be motivated by humanitarian socialist needs that provide equity for all. And the only route to that is via government projects. And the need for density? The socialist is going to repeat the mantra of the rich White homeowner in the neighbourhood where the houses have had a stratopheric increase in price. They're going to say we need to be obsessed with....say it with me...."preserving the character of the community." Which is in reality is no poor people or immigrants. So as George Carlin says, "Be happy with whatcha got....it's never gonna get better. "
Zoning is what people want. One reason is enough: NOISE. Yes cities without this are good. And I’d love to have more neighborhood grocery stores. But if you want less zoning, persuade a particular city’s residents to get rid of it and let that show forth your example. Don’t ruin peace and quiet for the rest of us
Are you willing to pay more taxes then? Majority of city budgets go into utilities and road maintenance in the suburbs. Also, you can't even afford soundproofing?
Home rule is extremely important. Local municiple governments have very specific populations, economics, or land use constraints. Any legislation written at a state or national level will be written to the benefit of donors, which means developers. I live in a city of 120,000 where every attempt to create mixed use density has been an economic failure. The type of development he is promoting only works in cities with large populations where density is supported organically. The problem I have with videos like this is that they want to impose their solutions based on a moral arguement of injustice and identity politics (NYMBYs are the problem), which tends to muzzle and demonize any rational analysis of local realities..
The problem with your premise is that it's actually those local governments in the suburbs who are pushing for even stricter zoning codes to "keep city people out"
12:49 ''The right makes it too difficult for folks from other places to enter...'' Wait...what? Does this channel support unlimited immigration? Does this channel support open borders? Is that what ''liberty''means here? No restrictions? Should a country have control over who is allowed to enter or not? Does this channel at least support the property rights of the individual or is that not viewed as ''liberty'' for those who ''want to enter''?
I don't know whether the channel supports open immigration, but I gather they support individual property rights. Part of the right to property includes the right to welcome visitors on it, regardless of whether the government or your neighbors approve.
The YIMBY movement people often forget that space is limited and you can't just build and build everywhere where there is demand, it's just stupid. Urbanist channels always talk about how induced demand works for vehicle traffic, but for some reason forget or don't consider that it works the same way for housing. More density? Of course. Let the market decide what is the correct density? Hell no.
There is no such thing as an “affordable housing crisis”. Do you know why? Because no one wants to SELL affordable housing. Oh, and government regulations.
The average seller needs the money from the sale to buy thier next residence. The next residence's price will likely be inflated too. It's all one big awful cycle.
I came to the realization that gentrification has led to me living in between homes several times during my life time. I would other wise be working at my micro business if I had a stable home. But instead, (and this is ironic), I've been staying in Airbnbs so that I don't end up in a homeless shelter. It's nearly impossible to find transitional housing.
''Houston doesn't have zoning laws.''
Houston has a planning and development agency that controls aspects of land use.
For example: '' The Department checks subdivision plats for the proper subdivision of land and for adequate street or right-of-way, building lines and for compliance with Chapter 42, the City’s land development ordinance.''
''Development site plans are checked for compliance with regulations that include parking, tree and shrub requirements, setbacks, and access.''
it's not a free-for-all. just sayin
Yes, exactly. For some reason this myth that Houston doesn’t have planning continues to exist.
It’s not more or less zoning that’s the problem. It’s the wrong type of zoning codes that create the problems.
Houston feels like hell. I can't imagine anyone thinking of it as an ideal.
@@PorpenteinI LOVE Houston it’s beautiful and growing and STILL affordable
Houston appears to have available land around it and it continues to expand outward with single family homes, so it has bad commutes and doesn’t have walkable communities that make sense for urban areas. Those factors need to be considered when deciding how to set land use and zoning controls for urban areas. Not a free for all, and not ridiculously complex requirements-instead apply ones that make it easy to build denser housing close to transit and develop walkable areas with good parks.
I was wondering if City Planning was going to be mentioned. Tangentially I suppose.
The effect of car centricity should probably be mentioned, at least in passing.
this channel was funded by the Cato Institute (the Koch brothers), the libertarian think-tank that owns this channel has billionaires and fervent capitalists on the board of directors, and they haven't disclosed their donors in almost a decade. the whole channel is just right-wing propaganda. of course they aren't going to get into the real problems.
Libertarians are really a fan of city planning. It's been called "socialist" in the past.
@@Parker307 younger libertarians are leading the push for zoning deregulation.
Older libertarians like that crazy fucker Randall O'Toole have went full batshit NIMBY.
Building codes included. I wanted to build a log cabin with wood felled from the property in a rural area but thats illegal. Not 1500 sq ft min? ILLEGAL! non "graded" wood? ILLEGAL! Not connected to grid? ILLEGAL! And so fourth. Because someone living in a simple home, out of sight, and with no interaction with the urbanite still outrages them. In their minds, such people should not be allowed to exist. How dare they not have x number of outlets per linear foot of countertop?
@strangelyukrainian7314 "so long as it’s safe" means you want government bureaucrats and regulations preventing people from building to what ever the arbitrary definition of "safe" is. For example I think in cali the permits are 10's of thousands of dollars to even get permission to build on your own property, all in the name of "safety" apparently.
@strangelyukrainian7314 All government bureaucracies enforce petty rules and the will torment others endlessly.
You create a hypothetical scenario to justify giving unaccountable individuals the ability wield the states monopoly og violence against others. This is a slippery slope.
If this Boogeyman hypothetical situation actually happens of someone dumping then that can be litigated privately. You don't need gov for that
@strangelyukrainian7314 " so long as it’s safe."
And who decides what is safe?
Nimbys in Florida just blocked a massive apartment complex (4 300 ft 20 story buildings) with a massive convention center near where I live which is going to hurt the economy. The area where its planned to be built is a mix of poor whites and upper middle class people moving in taking advantage of low prices (500k or so per a house which is low for central Florida) yet these rich boomers from downtown are blocking the development. So they're basically artificially increasing the housing price, taking away jobs for low income individuals, and causing the city to turn blue because they're to stupid to realise only rich Democrats will be able to afford to live there if nobody is allowed to build affordable housing. The FLDot even built a 2 mile highway so that the main road would connect to FL-429 (connects to I-4, TFL-414, turnpike, Disney, etc).
At least the developer has enough political capital to push the project through eventually but if this was a corrupt Democrat city it wouldn't be happening. The state of Florida wont allow them to block it in my opinion because they can't have the message out that Florida is anti development (states economy depends on developers and a growing population).
Voting Republican or Democrat is meaningless because that city is red yet they're still acting like Democrats
Most nimbys are liberal white women , a great example was marthas vineyard when they flew the migrants in...i also grew up in California...all those people with "racism has no home here" picket signs on their lawn are ironically the same people who will do anything to keep minorities out of their neighborhoods
NIMBY is silly because the changes desired by others is NEVER in your backyard (one word, not two for initials!). It's more like "Not Anywhere Near Me".
Short sighted thinking, it does come in to your backyard eventually...itll also exit through your front door if your city gets urbanized enough over time. People know how crime works, everyone wants to be kind, the issue is kindness is never returned with kindness.
This is a really cool video that, well, maybe,.. all people should see. You do cover a lot of data, homes, business, but mostly, why we have homeless.
It only makes sense to have a home and everything you need (shopping, doctors, fun) within walking distance. Don’t separate them or else you need to go across town to get a haircut
Small price to pay for less crime, i grew up in san francisco and had to move to a smaller town just for the peace of mind. i never have to lock my doors here, but in sf i was always stressed about my car being broken in to. Unless youve lived that life you will never understand.
Instructions unclear: removed zoning, now my neighbor is a Toyota dealership. We are trying to have a nice, quiet Christmas but the neighbors are celebrating Toyotathon for two months
I would love looking at cars in the showroom everyday tbh
Pollution is still illegal. This includes light and sound pollution.
so call the cops if they keep you up at night.
Here is one I would love for y’all to do a video on
How come in America a 1099 worker has to pay a minimum of 25 percent down payment In order to buy a home while a w2 worker can pay 3 percent
1099 jobs are less stable.
@@thadoc5186 no job is stable and the fact is that 33 percent ( give take ) of all jobs are 1099 and by far more people live in poverty by working w2 jobs because there more limited down to what they can make
@@stevemanning9576 It's easier to fire a 1099 worker. They're a contractor and they can be let go at will. Thus the job is less stable, and a bank will want a higher down payment.
@@thadoc5186 if someone wants to fire you there going to true you may get that extra week or 2 but if someone is a 1099 that means there willing to go out and do whatever it takes in order to make things happen while true a 1099 is more likely to “ fail “ there still willing to do whatever it takes to get whatever taken care of where as far as a w2 worker is more willing to slack off and not get things taken of
Low interest rates with low loan to value ratios which effectively leverages people's "profits" and inflates the market. Governments prop up bubbles with money printing, low interest rates (themselves enabled by fractional reserve banking meaning the bank also leverages, so can afford to offer lower rates - which is good but also not because it inflates the money supply....). Anyway, long story short if you "own" a property it's a gravy train, if you rent you are a serf. By the way, the UK and many places outside if US I guess, don't have zoning laws in the same sense, but the same issues persist. Money is correctly seen as not being a reliable store of wealth, thanks to inflationary government policies and deficit spending. Property is where people invest. I don't think changing zoning laws fixes that. In fact, I would hope older buildings or historic neighbourhoods are in some way protected to save their character from overdevelopment at the hands of "the market". Location, location, location... as we say in UK, it's where the value in property lies. It makes sense that older nicer places in central areas would outpace price growth in soulless endless suburbia.
Solid post, here.
Government is the problem; zoning.
Careful deregulation is the solution.
Rich people are part of the problem as well. Just look at how homeowners associations are run.
Big government leading to higher costs…who would of thought
Interesting that it's the suburbanites who want these zoning codes kept frozen in time.
i don't think reducing zoning is the only way to achieve that goal. vienna in austria has very specific zoning rules and the city's government changes the zones rapidly. for example mixed use is explicitly part of some zones and zoning is intentionally used to increase density. you are probably having a hard time finding another city anywhere in the world with that amount of affordable housing per capita
cool lets allow six story buildings everywhere then
Been to Vienna last year, beautiful city...not very diverse...very low crime rate. The laundromat was completely coin operated with not a single soul around and I could do laundry at 1 am. You cant do that here in san francisco or new york you will be robbed or killed. Theres a reason why nimbys are a thing, everyones afraid of their towns and neighborhood turning into a crime zone
And that's exactly the point - Vienna changes their zoning codes as they see fit.
Zoning codes in most US cities are completely frozen in time, since people in single family homes refuse to have their areas rezoned, even if they're near transit hubs and newer developments.
In conclusion, government sucks. Preaching to the choir man
What's sucks even more is when governments are teamed up with the rich.
Robespirerre was right. 😆
Now come on, government know best.
Gov is just a reflection of society. Nosy neighbours make a nanny state. Folks who keep to their own make a hands off state
Interestingly, it's the local governments that push for these strict zoning codes.
As a Chicagoland born person, *_Pizza must be eaten with a fork and knife._*
Death by a thousand cuts.
Just keep over correcting.
Duct tape will solve all problems.
There is no doubt that our immigration laws need to be updated but we do need vetting and no open borders
And less free stuff as incentives.
Is that something city governments should do as well? Make sure only approved people enter their borders?
@@ehanneken classic libertarian argument 9473, there are separations of powers and responsibilities for a reason. If a city chose to restrict access, in theory, they could, but it would not be beneficial. Our national borders are not the same thing as our cities, however, and just letting anyone in is not only a danger to those living near the border but also those in the cities where they live as they are unaccountable to our laws. I grew up surrounded by illegal immigrant farm workers and they caused many problems in the community and in our schools. And don't try the "immigrants are less likely to be criminals" nonsense as it is a lie because it combines legal and illegal immigrants into the same bucket.
@@RealCaptainAwesome well said
@@RealCaptainAwesome I disagree with you about illegal immigrants and crime. But regardless of the relative numbers, some native-born Americans do commit crimes. Shouldn't you be in favor of city governments screening their borders against them? Why would that not be beneficial to residents?
this is a fantastic video. thank you
High property values also encourage home improvements, ie further gentrification. It's all a bit of a ponzi scheme as society is generally in the west. Central bankers etc to blame
If zoning were more limited, it would make sense. Like we know all land can be: 1) natural; 2) park; 3) residential; 4) commercial; 5) industrial; 6) farming/agriculture; 7) mining/timber.
Houston doesn't have zoning per se, but we do have minimum house sizes per lot size. A lot of our gentrification was accelerated when they allowed more house on less land inside the Loop (610). They later allowed more house on less land inside the Beltway (8), but that hasn't taken off at quite the same speed yet.
That minimum size lot zoning law just got smaller. You can now build a single family home on 1250 square feet. This ordinance was past last year
@@piglet7943 they changed it for inside the loop over a decade ago (back when it started to get rebuilt) and outside the loop but inside the beltway about 5 years ago (which is why there's so much redevelopment there the last few years). I haven't heard of and recent changes.
The US could use some more manufacturing.
On the other hand, if you live in a South American country like it do, you can have an upscale apartment right next to a saw mill that's right next to a night club, that's right next to a bus terminal. You will not get any peace and quiet. So I think that zoning is necessary, but should be done better.
I'd think that perhaps having to deal with some noise is better than being homeless. Once you have a home you can start saving to soundproof your home should you desire.
Plus I'm not sure how "upscale" an apartment is if you have to deal with persistent loud noises. You'd think such things would bring down the price.
You can always buy more soundproofing
@@cleverwitticismhere6922 Not everyone is homeless nor are people aspiring to be home less. For most people it isn't one or the other, homelessness is often the exception
To me, zoning and NIMBYism have always been part and parcel to self determination. That is, it's only a problem insofar as people engage in it and then demand *you* do not engage in it.
But if San Francisco wants to be nothing but 3 story townhomes with no high density housing, then San Francisco can do it -- and they'll have to live with the fact that they've displaced the service industry that they also consider integral to the value of the city.
So yeah, lose the bullying and the projection and NIMBYism is perfectly fine in my eyes. Oh, and don't act confused when your zoning regulations have pushed all of the landscapers, baristas, and waiters out of the city.
Who is the "self" in what you're calling "self determination?" Clearly it's not a property owner who wants to develop his land in a way that the zoning rules outlaw. In that case, the law says, "No, you may not determine what is built on your own property."
@@ehanneken also the landscapers baristas and waiters will still be working in the city. They will just have to commute from the outskirts, making their lives that much more difficult. Cities should make room for all classes of people that support the cities economy.
Yes, but should those cities be forced by an external power to do so or is that a lesson they should learn on their own-however painfully, @@rhdufflebunny ?
@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 history has shown that those with power over others do not change how they operate unless some force, external or internal forces them to. Given that our system is highly effective at directing internal strife in ways politically expedient for those in power while crushing any will by the people to effect change for their benefit I don't see anything changing.
Interesting video, thanks.
RIGHT NOW NYT 60 of Public Health employees accused of corruption
How is it possible to return the property minus the increase in value? Did they make the Bruce family pay the increase in value?
Yeah, that makes no sense. If they have actually ownership of the property and have all the right's to said land... then they have the value as well.
I think that was sarcasm.
I could be wrong but because the house/ structure that was there was bulldozed and if it was still there it would be worth more
They mean the Bruce value could have enjoyed and benefited from that increased value of the land during the past 80 years or so instead of having to wait until now.
Always happy to see urbanist content from a libertarian perspective.
How are YIMBYs any different from NIMBYs? NIMBYs use the laws to protect the character of the neighborhood. These people are invested in their neighborhoods. This is what made these neighborhoods desirable. YIMBY’s come in with the lie of affordable housing to change the laws and overrun these neighborhoods with their own plans. Who is the real hypocrite?
Also, it is not about white rich white people vs minorities. Take the case of Bob Tillman who spent years and millions of dollars on a legal battle to turn his coin-operated laundromat into an apartment building in the San Francisco of the Mission. The neighborhood is one of several neighborhoods that is home to a working-class, Latino community. The Latino community was determined to stop gentrification in the Mission, so they completely blocked the project.
If the real point is to build affordable housing, there is no need to build in established "desirable" neighborhoods. There are plenty of rundown neighborhoods in these cities that could use a refresh with NEW affordable housing. Why don't the YMBYs take their money there IF affordable housing for the poor is the point of all this.
We have a free rider problem or a Tragedy of the commons. Think the Bible Story about mana from the sky. People started hoarding and the mana dwindled even though there was plenty for everyone. Every area basically wants to keep new people out.
In the case of housing, there is a squeeze of NIMBY suburbanites and the anti gentrification NIMBYs.
YIMBYs are for development in both areas - gentrification that makes the place nicer, and densification of the suburbs so more people can live there.
The fears of both NIMBYs make sense. If a suburb densifies with apartments, row houses, it will bring in more people who previously couldn't afford - usually poor.
If gentrification takes hold, it will make the place more desirable, more affluent people will come in, and eventually rents will be less affordable.
Gentrification without densification of the neighboring suburbs puts the squeeze on the current urban dwellers. Where would they go? Densification of the suburb without gentrification seems like a wasted opportunity as you mentioned.
Housing abundance requires every location to allow some development. YIMBYs do not have money, they are simply advocates. It is private enterprise that has money and develop property.
YIMBYs are about the freedom of individual land owners to build and reap the economic benefits of providing more housing that the society demands.
What is wrong with upzoning though? That is how cities grew back then, and until now it's the case in countries like Japan and Austria.
The people that try to stop development in the urban are because they’re afraid of gentrification are also NIMBYs.
In a more natural economy, the rich tend to live in the center of town while poorer people live in the outskirts and commute in.
Think of Manhattan, London, Paris, Singapore, practically all major cities outside the US. The most valuable real estate is in the city centers. In the US, the city center is seen as more crime ridden.
We need to let a freer market take its course. Many suburbs close to city centers are ripe for densification, that it to say, the market deems the land as too valuable to just be for single family homes. More people are willing to pay good money to live there. Other types of housing makes sense like duplexes, bi houses with over 5 rooms, bungalo courtyards, small apartments, ADUs, etc.
Many urban areas are ripe for gentrification, meaning that the real estate is too valuable to just left to urban blight. Nicer apartments to replace vacant dilapidated buildings make sense economically. People are also willing
In both areas, we need to allow private enterprise to do its thing which is to realize the best value for land.
Interesting
The volume of the music on most of the videos on this channel make them unwatchable. Especially on headphones.
Houston has pretty bad building codes though so it basically is just zoning but inside the building codes.
People believe their own hipocrisy
Solid video, but your take on homelessness is not accurate. The stats bear out that the overwhelming majority of people living on the street are addicts, suffering a mental health crisis or both.
Umm, if it's easier for a developer to develope anything, it's not gonna be affordable housing unless you incentivize that. That's gentrification. Rooming houses aren't really gonna make people feel good about the policy either.
Then it's time for the government to become one of the developers as well. It worked in Japan, Austria, and Singapore. Why not in the US?
Very few new buildings are affordable. A building built in 1970 would have been pretty expensive to live in in 1970. Today, however, a building built in 1970 is probably a more affordable place to live than the ones built today. To have more affordable housing you need to allow luxury buildings to be built too, as 50 years from now those will be more affordable.
I don’t eat Chicago pizza with a fork
Houston is so far ahead of the curve.
Remote working has debunked the "people want to live in dense cities" theory. When given the option to leave a city and live in spacious rural areas, humans prefer fresh air. The good thing is that as businesses need less office space in cities it does open the door for more residential in their place, and maybe a healthier city option for those that like to live like sardines.
People just want to work on their pyjamas, not having to commute, put up with annoying co-workers and have the boss around all the time... that's the main drive of remote working. You can do that from the city the same.
@@soundscape26 Right now we are seeing a migration from the city by remote workers, but a lot of that is probably cost base. Once enough office space is converted to residential, and COLA for cities drops, maybe we'll see a return. A lot of unknown to be sure.
I do love me my sardine lifestyle
@@hector6715 I'm glad I have more space.
Only in the US. In thw rest of the world people are still moving into cities, because all the amenities are there, as well as the fast internet connection needed for remote work .
Gold&Blue ;)
"Less likely to live in too much house. More likely to live in cramped apartments." Who gets to decide what is "too much" house? Why is cramped apartment living desirable??? 🙄
It’s clear it’s semi sarcastic. But when you look at copy paste McMansions they’re artificially cheap.
How about the missing middle then? Townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, tiny single family homes, family compounds, etc.?
8:39 Aren't you conflating two issues here? One is the lack of small businesses in walking distance of a community that make it a living place. Another is having folks with different life styles sharing a neighborhood. Different concerns in my book.
They're pretty much correlated tbh
@@ianhomerpura8937 Care to elaborate?
How dare you disparage the great democrat Mayor Dailey
Put some respect on his name
He worked wonders for Chicago
Gentrifiers tend to ruin the many minority neighborhoods they try to overrun
Let’s give black and Latino people free houses in expensive neighborhoods to make us all feel better.
Is that what you take from the video?
We have a massive problem. And that problem is that this uploader is not addressing the monumental problem of political and economic ideology.
He needs to talk to the Leftists who support, draft this legislation and vote for it. They are ideologically entrenched in these policies.
Let's broadly look at his arguments against them that are grounded in reality. Supply and demand? Leftists are going to say that smacks of capitalism. Which is de facto fascism. Needs shouldn't be dictated by the regime of capitalism. We all need to be working to the socialist Utopia.
What about incentives? He lives in the world of reality. Where the developer and the construction trades want to earn a paycheck. The Leftist is going to say we can't base such an essential need like housing on something so morally repulsive as the profit motive. We have to be motivated by humanitarian socialist needs that provide equity for all. And the only route to that is via government projects.
And the need for density? The socialist is going to repeat the mantra of the rich White homeowner in the neighbourhood where the houses have had a stratopheric increase in price. They're going to say we need to be obsessed with....say it with me...."preserving the character of the community." Which is in reality is no poor people or immigrants.
So as George Carlin says, "Be happy with whatcha got....it's never gonna get better. "
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
The freakout over 15 minute cities is a right wing problem.
Zoning is what people want. One reason is enough: NOISE. Yes cities without this are good. And I’d love to have more neighborhood grocery stores. But if you want less zoning, persuade a particular city’s residents to get rid of it and let that show forth your example. Don’t ruin peace and quiet for the rest of us
Are you willing to pay them just compensation for taking peoples property?
Are you willing to pay more taxes then? Majority of city budgets go into utilities and road maintenance in the suburbs.
Also, you can't even afford soundproofing?
Home rule is extremely important. Local municiple governments have very specific populations, economics, or land use constraints. Any legislation written at a state or national level will be written to the benefit of donors, which means developers. I live in a city of 120,000 where every attempt to create mixed use density has been an economic failure. The type of development he is promoting only works in cities with large populations where density is supported organically. The problem I have with videos like this is that they want to impose their solutions based on a moral arguement of injustice and identity politics (NYMBYs are the problem), which tends to muzzle and demonize any rational analysis of local realities..
The problem with your premise is that it's actually those local governments in the suburbs who are pushing for even stricter zoning codes to "keep city people out"
Learn Liberty has no understanding of the non-aggression principle.
Houston is hell. Pure hell. It's sprawled and yet it takes 40 minutes to go a quarter of a mile
Doesn’t take me 40 minutes to go a 1/4 mile. You must be crawling on your belly 😂😂
Sorry dude - most people I know DO NOT want to live in "cramped apartments."
Probably they are all rich smug suburbanites like you.
The stats say otherwise. We most of us would rather live in dense urban environments
@piglet7943 Not really, post covid were basically seeing a 2nd wave of migrantion to suburbs like what happened decades ago
Then why are cramped apartments in big cities always full?
12:49 ''The right makes it too difficult for folks from other places to enter...''
Wait...what? Does this channel support unlimited immigration? Does this channel support open borders? Is that what ''liberty''means here? No restrictions? Should a country have control over who is allowed to enter or not?
Does this channel at least support the property rights of the individual or is that not viewed as ''liberty'' for those who ''want to enter''?
I don't know whether the channel supports open immigration, but I gather they support individual property rights. Part of the right to property includes the right to welcome visitors on it, regardless of whether the government or your neighbors approve.
Internal migration is a thing lol. People constantly move from town to town, city to city.
@@ianhomerpura8937 The host said ''countries''...hence my comment.
This video is a long way to say racism and xenophobia.
In case you didnt watch the video, he talks about that around 2:00
Whole lot of generalization going on here.
this is a pretty bad take
=
Umm…I’ll stick to rural and suburbs. I like space, peace, less crowds, and less traffic.
Then pay enough for roads and utilities.
Um… you’re gonna have to deal with *more* traffic if you have to drive everywhere, not less
The YIMBY movement people often forget that space is limited and you can't just build and build everywhere where there is demand, it's just stupid. Urbanist channels always talk about how induced demand works for vehicle traffic, but for some reason forget or don't consider that it works the same way for housing. More density? Of course. Let the market decide what is the correct density? Hell no.
Letting the market decide for the right density worked well for most cities. Why won't it work in the US though?
Things aren't any better here in europe🙈
Europe is dealing with an overabundance of Airbnb's, not exactly zoning laws. Having diverse neighbourhoods is not a problem.
The naivety is strong in this video.
Care to elaborate?
@@ianhomerpura8937 He did not care to elaborate...
@@PappaTom-ub3ht typical of people nowadays.
Even cheap housing won't fix the problem when you pay them to be homeless
There is no such thing as an “affordable housing crisis”.
Do you know why?
Because no one wants to SELL affordable housing.
Oh, and government regulations.
Looks like you have never been to Singapore then.
The average seller needs the money from the sale to buy thier next residence. The next residence's price will likely be inflated too. It's all one big awful cycle.
America's kinda famous for your weak borders, though?