But, the convention in the US is that people see their houses as a form of savings. Realistically, we should account for that.
Also, if continuing the building ends up requiring some policy change (supported by changing laws and regulations)… it seems reasonable to protect normal people, doing normal things, from massive financial chaos that is explicitly caused by the government changing policies on them. At least for people actually using the houses as intended, that is, living in them.
Because policies they cause huge financial harm to normal people become unpopular, and don’t spread as a result. And also because it is bad for society if we modify the rules in ways that makes it harder to plan ahead.
> Are angry homeowners overthrowing governments and blocking homebuilding?
Yes. Go to city council meetings when new housing developments are being proposed. See the throngs of people that'll show up demanding that new development doesn't get built. See the angry people shouting about how allowing ADUs will just destroy their way of life.
The amount of vitrol I saw about the Plano Tomorrow plan against past mayor LaRosiliere was astounding, people fighting tooth and nail to prevent denser housing from being approved. So many people saying things like the "wrong kind of people" would be moving in and allowing more density would make the city unsafe.
That's the local council. Local
council meetings are notorious for attracting people willing to oppose any development. Not the same thing as an electoral force.
Recent zoning changes in Texas came from the state legislature and remove cities ability to block a fair number of housing types.
Did Plano itself actually enact any new pro zoning law that has drawn new protests? The article you shared it about developing undeveloped land but zoning is largely about what is blocked on existing inhabited land.
> Local council meetings are notorious for attracting people willing to oppose any development.
So yes, even you agree there are angry homeowners doing what they can blocking homebuilding.
Yes, it's been happening at the local level, because that's where those decisions are almost always made.
> Recent zoning changes in Texas came from the state legislature
As in, this last legislative session. It took to that point because of angry homeowners blocking development. And how did they do it? By pushing out any local government that tried to enact development plans that tried to densify over and over again throughout tons of towns. The legislation didn't come from a vacuum, it came in response to these NIMBYs that have otherwise yielded significant political power at the local level.
> zoning is largely about what is blocked on existing inhabited land.
Practically all that land is currently zoned. It's not developed, but it is zoned. Almost always zoned agriculturally, as it was once pretty much all farm lands. Lots of those areas are still farms, but largely for tax reasons.
> Are angry homeowners overthrowing governments and blocking homebuilding?
No, they're already in the government, have been for decades, and they're the ones responsible for anti-development policy.
> For example, re Texas, 9 out of 10 say housing prices are too high
Cute punchy polls like that make for nice sound bits, but don't tell the whole story. I'm sure if you followed that up with, "If the government were to enact new housing development property that would reduce the value of your home by 20% over the next 10 years, would you support it?", I guarantee you that 9 out of 10 (homeowners) would absolutely not.
It doesn't really matter why; what matters is that they do see things that way.
And I agree with you, it's a bad convention, and it causes tons of problems, and it's the result of recent decades of bad mortgage/housing/zoning policy. But we can't just wipe it away and pretend it was never there, and let the chips fall where they may. That's just heartless, and, well -- you talk about making society poorer -- that will make society much, much poorer, nearly overnight.
No it won't. If society builds more dwellings society is richer. Wealth is the actual physical production of goods and services.
We wouldn't get richer if we blew up car factories to protect the market value of existing cars. The market value of existing cars WOULD skyrocket if we destroyed all new car production, but that would be society getting poorer, not richer, as we would have fewer cars.
> But, the convention in the US is that people see their houses as a form of savings.
And that is a big part of the problem. You cannot have it both ways, if housing is an investment, it will eventually lead to poorer outcomes for anybody that needs a house and does not inherit one.
Also, if continuing the building ends up requiring some policy change (supported by changing laws and regulations)… it seems reasonable to protect normal people, doing normal things, from massive financial chaos that is explicitly caused by the government changing policies on them. At least for people actually using the houses as intended, that is, living in them.