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.
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/
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.