"We need to reform housing, allowing increased density and by-right permit approvals, and then the little guy has a chance to build affordable housing."
But why do we tend to create such restrictive zoning and approval processes? I think it's inescapable to conclude that this is a rational response to the low holding cost we currently impose on holding land.
If you're a landowner equipped with the power of zoning, why would you want to allow more development elsewhere? In the immediate reaction (common to NIMBYs), one has everything to gain and nothing to lose.
In a more market-driven situation, the landowner would weigh the desire for lower density against a real cost-- that is, the rising value of land would create more of a tax burden. (This would be the case in California if not for the anti-market behavior of Prop 13.) In an ideal situation, the burden of additional development nearby (congestion, shadows, etc), would be perfectly balanced against a drop in a tax burden.
So I'll just conclude that you're correct, but not looking deeply enough. All things eventually go back to the taxation policy on land and other natural resources.
I can't recommend enough the book by William Fischel, "The Economics of Zoning Laws"[0] (later published in a revised edition as "Zoning Rules!") to see the rationality of all actors in the current paradigm.
But why do we tend to create such restrictive zoning and approval processes? I think it's inescapable to conclude that this is a rational response to the low holding cost we currently impose on holding land.
If you're a landowner equipped with the power of zoning, why would you want to allow more development elsewhere? In the immediate reaction (common to NIMBYs), one has everything to gain and nothing to lose.
In a more market-driven situation, the landowner would weigh the desire for lower density against a real cost-- that is, the rising value of land would create more of a tax burden. (This would be the case in California if not for the anti-market behavior of Prop 13.) In an ideal situation, the burden of additional development nearby (congestion, shadows, etc), would be perfectly balanced against a drop in a tax burden.
So I'll just conclude that you're correct, but not looking deeply enough. All things eventually go back to the taxation policy on land and other natural resources.
I can't recommend enough the book by William Fischel, "The Economics of Zoning Laws"[0] (later published in a revised edition as "Zoning Rules!") to see the rationality of all actors in the current paradigm.
And the constructive recommendations?
1) Repeal Prop 13. 2) Push for a Land Value Tax.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Zoning-Laws-Property-Approa...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax