Nimbys, Nimtos and their Banana Republics

[retro_orange]

Why everyone loses when real estate innovation is stifled

When a resource is owned by many, the rights-holders often prevent others from developing the resource, causing its value to deplete.


Michael Heller, a professor of real estate law at Columbia University, has dubbed such a situation “the tragedy of the anticommons.”

The paradox applies increasingly to real estate markets where not just the real assets are often held simultaneously by many, but other non-property assets, such as data archived on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), could have numerous rights-holders.

Unlike the tragedy of the commons, which results in overuse of a jointly held asset resulting in its depletion or destruction, the tragedy of the anticommons results in underuse or underdevelopment. This is a familiar theme in property markets, where Nimbys, Nimtos, and Banana Republics often make development difficult or impossible.

Most readers of this column are familiar with Nimbys, whose mantra is Not In My Backyard. Nimbys resist any construction in their neighbourhood — they are not against development per se, they just don’t want it near them.

The residents of Marpole neighbourhood in Vancouver, who opposed the plan to build a homeless shelter near them, can be considered Nimbys. They resisted the planned shelter because they believed it would result in higher crime and drug use. Marpole residents were not against the shelter, they just didn’t want it near them.

The citizens of Banana Republics have one big goal: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone. They are the poster children for preserving the status quo. Land parcels that fall within their zones of influence stand little chance of ever being developed.

Nimtos are the politicians who might see the value in a proposed development but are likely to stand against it fearing backlash by constituent Nimbys and Banana Republics. (The acronym stands for ’Not In My Term in Office’)

The Nimbys, Nimtos, and Banana Republics either individually or collectively erect barriers against new developments. Thus, undeveloped or underdeveloped land fails to reach its true potential.

The naysayers to development are amazingly effective as they often can influence development outcomes on land parcels they don’t even own.To them, the entire neighbourhood is their easement.

Changes in planning regulations can help empower like-minded owners to develop a real asset at a higher intensity. In Vancouver, owners of contiguous lots in a predominantly single-family detached neighbourhood can sell their “assembled” units to a builder who would then develop the site at a higher density.

In the absence of such enabling regulations, other homeowners in the neighbourhood could thwart attempts to densify citing an increase in noise, traffic, parking, and the demand for public services, such as schools.

Real estate data is a valuable resource whose ownership is highly atomized. Millions of dwellings are listed each year on MLS in Canada. The data are collected from individual homeowners by listing brokers who archive it on the MLS.

The MLS data is an example where one would need a consensus among many stakeholders to decide upon the scope of its use. The Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB), for instance, prohibits real estate agents, brokers, and others from analyzing (mining) data or using it to sell “derivative products or marketing reports.”

For innovation to take root in real estate, data must be analyzed using advanced analytics, including deep learning algorithms. But such a socially desirable outcome is unlikely if those who “own” real estate data continue to restrict its innovative use.

One response to real estate gridlock is the use of eminent domain that allows governments to seize property for public use. The New York Times building in Manhattan, completed in 2007, became possible because of eminent domain. Otherwise, numerous owners of the assembled parcels would not have voluntarily sold their properties.

A consensus-seeking process in which rights-holders are educated on the benefits of a better use of real assets or data is better than forcing people into compliance.

The Nimbys, Nimtos, and Banana Republics should know that gridlocked economies are bad for all in the long run.

Murtaza Haider is an associate professor at Ryerson University. Stephen Moranis is a real estate industry veteran. They can be reached at www.hmbulletin.com.

https://business.financialpost.com/r...ion-is-stifled

[misher]

I look after a building beside a bc housing project. It’s a shitty thing to have near you and I assume modular housing is worse. They constantly leave their garbage and furniture on our property. Constant crime and needles. CoV refuses to do anything as it’s orovincial. BC housing refuses to do anything unless I can tell them with withnessrs exactly what unit the resident is in that is doing things (as if I can follow them back through the building to their unit.

BC housing refuses to take any of the junk dumped on our property away so it’s a constant cost of $300 to Got Junk every two weeks.


I also look after another building downtown beside a hotel that’s being used to house homeless. Things are much worse there, constant needle cleanups and people shooting up outfront. When police come we have to pressure them or they won’t help us move the guy shooting up away. This is in South West Downtown, can’t imagine how bad the east side buildings have it.

We also have two people in wheelchairs that shoot up on the property then lean back creepily while there out so it looks like dead people in chairs are beside the front door constantly. And yes it’s not fun to cleanup human shit.



If you want that beside your home I wish you the best but I definitely don’t want it near my home.
Thank god I live in Richmond.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by misher

If you want that beside your home I wish you the best but I definitely don’t want it near my home.
Thank god I live in Richmond.

I'm late to the party but I agree with what you wrote.

I'm honestly hoping that the city-wide plan that the council is drumming up (in 4 years or so according the newspapers ) will emphasize allowing certain zones to allow modular/temporary/social housing whereas other zones will restrict those kinds of constructions. I don't think it's any fun for someone's 4 year old kid to accidentally pick up a needle, prick themselves, and contract some sort of disease or addiction. Again I don't work for the city so I don't know if there are any bylaws that are already in place with these kinds of restrictions. My understanding is that there aren't any?

I agree with a stronger emphasis on density everywhere in Metro Vancouver and I agree with dramatically increasing rental supply. But what I don't agree with is placing a social-housing project or a safe-shoot-up space beside a school, covering up common-sense with SJW logic, and then pretending that children will grow up with a sense of safety.

My bold suggestion to start with the inclusion of these problematic demographics in Vancouver, would be to start with the east-side (specifically East Hastings) and to take a more aggressive zoning approach with temporary/social housing (and the corresponding social services) in mind. To me that seems a little too basic to not already be happening; I mean there was a new mid-rise on East Hastings with a strong social housing component that was constructed in the last few years IIRC.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by scryer

I'm late to the party but I agree with what you wrote.

I'm honestly hoping that the city-wide plan that the council is drumming up (in 4 years or so according the newspapers ) will emphasize allowing certain zones to allow modular/temporary/social housing whereas other zones will restrict those kinds of constructions. I don't think it's any fun for someone's 4 year old kid to accidentally pick up a needle, prick themselves, and contract some sort of disease or addiction. Again I don't work for the city so I don't know if there are any bylaws that are already in place with these kinds of restrictions. My understanding is that there aren't any?

I agree with a stronger emphasis on density everywhere in Metro Vancouver and I agree with dramatically increasing rental supply. But what I don't agree with is placing a social-housing project or a safe-shoot-up space beside a school, covering up common-sense with SJW logic, and then pretending that children will grow up with a sense of safety.

My bold suggestion to start with the inclusion of these problematic demographics in Vancouver, would be to start with the east-side (specifically East Hastings) and to take a more aggressive zoning approach with temporary/social housing (and the corresponding social services) in mind. To me that seems a little too basic to not already be happening; I mean there was a new mid-rise on East Hastings with a strong social housing component that was constructed in the last few years IIRC.

Note that proposals to build 13-story towers in Chinatown, and upzone most of the Woodlands were rejected out of community opposition.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by misher

I look after a building beside a bc housing project. It’s a shitty thing to have near you and I assume modular housing is worse. They constantly leave their garbage and furniture on our property. Constant crime and needles. CoV refuses to do anything as it’s orovincial. BC housing refuses to do anything unless I can tell them with withnessrs exactly what unit the resident is in that is doing things (as if I can follow them back through the building to their unit.

BC housing refuses to take any of the junk dumped on our property away so it’s a constant cost of $300 to Got Junk every two weeks.

BC housing sounds like a good idea, but really it's not. Not a lot you can do now, but building co-operatives is a much better functioning community in most cases. BC housing ( and Metro Van Housing ) is directly tied to income, whereas MOST co-ops have majority of units with a regular market-rate housing charge and a percent ( around 30% usually ) that are subsidized.

You end up with people who are subsidized in a unit, as opposed to units that are subsidized. This both dignifies the person who perhaps is struggling or disenfranchised and includes them in a larger community.

If you're surrounded by crap, you have little motivation to improve your lot in life, even if you yourself are doing well. Why bother.

Note: I do NOT think that people living in BC housing projects are socially inept or irresponsible citizens, the majority are NOT. It's just that it doesn't take much for the low percentage of people that DO HAVE issues, all concentrated in one area, to make the efforts of the rest look like a waste of time and effort.

How come we never hear about problems in the Olympic village? There are low-income people who would otherwise be in BC housing in 30% of units there. I remember when that was being built people were all up-in-arms about creating luxury units for low-income people... as if they shouldn't 'DESERVE' to live in waterfront property. Waterfront property is only more valuable because we've assigned a higher value to it... but enough philosophy.

Those people are probably the same people who would put pigeon spikes up all over their building pushing pigeons to concentrate in the few areas they can and then complain to the city about the massive number of pigeons in the park pooping all over the place.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

https://business.financialpost.com/r...ion-is-stifled

I'm a little skeptical of any article that claims real estate "innovation" is being stifled. What is exactly is "innovative" here? Sounds like developer propaganda.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm a little skeptical of any article that claims real estate "innovation" is being stifled. What is exactly is "innovative" here? Sounds like developer propaganda.

Maybe buildings that don't look like generic tabletops?

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm a little skeptical of any article that claims real estate "innovation" is being stifled. What is exactly is "innovative" here? Sounds like developer propaganda.

Moreso I was curious as to how we view computer algorithms planning our cities of the future though I liked it's commentary on Nimto's as that was a term I was not familiar with.