"I just want some damned stability in my life"
Fear of change vs. instability
An exchange from r/CanadaPolitics.
It’s honestly not that the majority want to “protect their investment” and while I am sure it’s true for some, most from what I know is people not wanting their neighbourhoods to change. It’s that simple. They don’t want to have a large apartment building overshadowing their home and yard creating a lack of privacy, loss of sun, etc…. Also just losing that sense of the area you grew up in. I hear people comment about how the place they grew up changed and it doesn’t feel like home anymore, now imagine watching that happen and having the same feeling for years.
I am not saying this is a good thing but it’s not always greed, most people just don’t like change. Personally I get why it needs to happen but honestly I would probably move out of the city if large buildings started to go up on my residential street. My house isn’t my retirement or an investment property, it’s my home, which unless I get a reason to won’t be moving from it and I can understand why the changes that are needed make people uncomfortable. I suppose it does depend on the area and demographics though.
Someone else responded:
It is very difficult for me to sympathize with you. I agree with you that neighbourhoods changing causes suffering to those who have lived in single-family houses in that neighbourhood for a long time. What is missing from what you wrote is an acknowledgement that the suffering of us renters is far greater.
You talk of living in your house as being not just an investment property, but a home.
But I'm forced to rent a room, living with strangers, sharing a kitchen and a bathroom. I'm living in a basement room, and we don't get a lot of sunlight in the basement, and we don't even get a living or tv area. And every 4-5 years, I'm forced to move because the house-owner wants to cash in their investment and sell the house.
Currently, I'm stressed because now I worry I'll have to move far away from school. The market for rental rooms is that bad.
Yes, some shadows on your lawn is suffering. Seeing 4-plexes and 6-plexes on your street is suffering. It makes your home less home-like.
But moving every 4-5 years as I have to do, having to live with strangers, not even having a lawn, having sometimes to deal with toxic housemates if I'm unlucky, living with noise that I cannot control, and then finding that it takes me 1 to 2 hours longer one way to get to school - you think this is "having a home"?!
I don't think it's too much of me to ask you house-owners to tolerate a small amount of change and suffering, so that I can get some damned stability in my life. You can keep your lawn and your quiet lifestyle. I just don't want to have to move every 4-5 years and maybe even be forced to quit school because I'm going to be pushed out of the GTA, because I can no longer afford to rent a room in somebody's house and live with 2 other strangers on the same floor.
I've learned over the years that only a minority of people have the ability to put themselves in the shoes of another person, understand how their behaviour is harming them, and, change out of the goodness of their own hearts. The problem isn't that these people who already own their own homes aren't saints---it's that our municipal governments have given them an effective veto over new housing. The other side of the Yin Yang is people who don't own their own homes don't feel any obligation towards to the community, so they don't vote--they just move. This perpetuates the home-owners veto.
In a recent podcast episode, Sam Bowman argues that there would be fewer NIMBYs if community members had the option of being compensated for the costs that they bear from nearby development. To the best of my memory this is not something that you've written about so I'd be interested to hear your take on it.
↓↓ Episode Excerpts ↓↓
I live on a pretty busy road. I own a house. The road is quite loud. The more road users there are around me, the louder that road will get. Now, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t add more people. [...] But I will definitely bear a cost from that.
And as it stands, I have one option. The only thing I can do is say, “I don’t want you to build this, because it will make my life slightly worse in a very small way.”
I think that when you frame new housing as a kind of fairness issue, and say, “It’s very unfair: you own your house; it’s very unfair that you’re not letting other people into your neighbourhood.” That doesn’t sound to me like a very compelling reason that I should want to change my mind. That sounds like you’re saying I’m a bad person and that I am going to be made worse off by this, and I don’t want to be made worse off by this.
So I think the challenge is how do we make new housing in the interests of existing residents? Either financially and/or I would say in terms of the effect that it has on the area.
We really want a world where the price system is doing the targets and people are, “Great! They’re building an apartment complex down the road from us — we’re rich!” Or, “This area is going to become so great.”
...the key mechanism [...] is to take away a situation where all you can do is veto something, and to be able to transact that veto — to be able to not quite sell the veto, but have the ability to give it up in exchange for some of the benefit that would otherwise go to the developer, or the people who get to live in the apartments, or whatever it might be.
↑↑ Episode Excerpts ↑↑
Here's a link to the episode for your interest. It's 3.5h long, UK-focused, and it has a transcript. https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/sam-bowman-overcoming-nimbys-housing-policy-proposals/