> Prop 13 shields NIMBYs from negative externalities of their desire for their neighborhoods not to change. Housing is in short supply which inflates property values, but they don't have to worry about that because they don't want to sell and property taxes continue to remain low due to Prop 13.
This is a really good point, and this framing helps me understand your argument much better, thanks!
> The incentive to build is low because most existing property owners want to continue living somewhere in the Bay Area and if they move, their taxes reset.
I don't think this is right, though -- the incentive to move is low, but the incentive to build is high. Since people do move, even though there is a strong counterincentive, we find that properties do come on the market, and overwhelmingly the reason they are not bought by developers to build larger structures with more units is zoning.
If developers could buy a SFH for $2m and build a 4-plex, selling each unit for $1m (numbers that are pretty common in wealthy Bay Area neighborhoods), then they absolutely would and we'd see this all over the place. In my neighborhood this happens every time edge cases in zoning allow it. (Large enough lot that it can be split? Developer buys it, builds two units. Weird commercial conversion with higher floor limits? Developer buys it, builds three units.)
I agree that prop 13 has an impact here, but zoning in most neighborhoods literally prohibits new construction -- so I don't think a prop 13 repeal would have nearly as much of an impact on new housing construction as upzoning or other zoning mitigation. Of course, from an economic perspective both are highly problematic distortions of pricing (along with rent control!), and both need to be reevaluated -- but if I had to pick one, I'd pick zoning!
What kind of an idiotic argument is this? Prop 13 and nimbys are tied at the hip. Repeal prop 13 and you’ll see the same nimbys squeal for more supply to keep prices down.
This is a really good point, and this framing helps me understand your argument much better, thanks!
> The incentive to build is low because most existing property owners want to continue living somewhere in the Bay Area and if they move, their taxes reset.
I don't think this is right, though -- the incentive to move is low, but the incentive to build is high. Since people do move, even though there is a strong counterincentive, we find that properties do come on the market, and overwhelmingly the reason they are not bought by developers to build larger structures with more units is zoning.
If developers could buy a SFH for $2m and build a 4-plex, selling each unit for $1m (numbers that are pretty common in wealthy Bay Area neighborhoods), then they absolutely would and we'd see this all over the place. In my neighborhood this happens every time edge cases in zoning allow it. (Large enough lot that it can be split? Developer buys it, builds two units. Weird commercial conversion with higher floor limits? Developer buys it, builds three units.)
I agree that prop 13 has an impact here, but zoning in most neighborhoods literally prohibits new construction -- so I don't think a prop 13 repeal would have nearly as much of an impact on new housing construction as upzoning or other zoning mitigation. Of course, from an economic perspective both are highly problematic distortions of pricing (along with rent control!), and both need to be reevaluated -- but if I had to pick one, I'd pick zoning!