tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3082331.post5037447250250764721..comments2023-12-22T15:39:43.656-07:00Comments on debitage: This post will ruin your property valuesStentorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13629599671442149938noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3082331.post-58485445707820533042009-02-11T10:42:00.000-07:002009-02-11T10:42:00.000-07:00:):)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3082331.post-10747841557477048542009-02-05T09:47:00.000-07:002009-02-05T09:47:00.000-07:00It's a part of the social question that often does...It's a part of the social question that often doesn't get asked: Who benefits, and who pays for it?<BR/><BR/>In the development model... the developer does. There are a few token benefits that are offered to sweeten the pot to the society (and its decision makers), and the people who pay for it get to go hang. Yet when it's something huge in some Third World nation like a dam that's going to displace many thousands, we *expect* that they will be provided for, compensated. Same's true--sort of--here. But the compensation is almost always at artificially reduced rates (again, who pays?). Our models and expectations are screwy.<BR/><BR/>Stentor, having observed the need, it's time to push into common net usage some sort of punctuation. I think I'd recommend hash marks.<BR/><BR/>#Don't dry your clothes in the free Arizona sun, or put up a sign supporting a candidate -- it might ruin someone's property values!#<BR/><BR/>It sort of acknowledges that one's making a hash of it, but even so....ogrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3082331.post-56278241916284127832009-02-05T09:45:00.000-07:002009-02-05T09:45:00.000-07:00On another note, I've just discovered a paper that...On another note, I've just discovered a <A HREF="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/00-04.PDF" REL="nofollow">paper</A> that argues that NIMBYism is a form of insurance against the possibility, however unlikely, that new development will reduce property values. It doesn't offer much evidence that renters are less likely to be NIMBYs, but the other points are well-taken.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3082331.post-32998745103676536252009-02-05T08:25:00.000-07:002009-02-05T08:25:00.000-07:00I suspect there's more than just prejudice at work...I suspect there's more than just prejudice at work. Projects that enhance property values, like mass transit, draw fire from NIMBYs as well. Often you get NIMBYism from people who don't own their homes, who instead voice concerns about crime, noise, neighborhood character, or infrastructure. As with property values, these concerns are often specious. The infrastructure argument is currently used to block upzoning in a Brooklyn neighborhood where the subway runs at less than half capacity.<BR/><BR/>I chalk it up more to risk-averse behavior and bargaining. Most people accept the risks associated with where they live, and almost all long-time residents, who carry the most weight in community activism, by definition do. The risks associated with change not only are unknown but also haven't been accepted by the residents. They're also usually induced by outsiders or people who look like outsiders. In New York it's typically a developer who wants to make millions off of condos and in Irvine it's usually a homeowner who wants to paint his house in a different color from everyone else, but the principle is the same.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.com