ctrl-f "quality of life" 0 of 0 ctrl-f "quality" The article assumes that the artificial restriction of supply is accidental, rather than intentional. Everything that follows is nonsense. People don't move into a home to maximize their marginal utility, they move there to live. And no. They don't want you building an 8-unit townhome next door, there are plenty of 8-unit townhomes elsewhere. Zoning laws aren't a mistake, zoning laws exist to preserve the character of neighborhoods and those who own (OWN) within that neighborhood are entirely within their legal right to fight to preserve its character against those who merely wish to live there.We base our estimates on an “economy” quality home, and assume that builders in an unregulated market should expect to earn 17 percent over this purely physical cost of construction, which would have to cover other soft costs of construction including land assembly.
The article argues that zoning should be reformed to maximize marginal utility. Reality argues that maximization of marginal utility is not the function of zoning. I've watched you get all spun up over Kelo v. New London a couple times now. The article is on the side of eminent domain.
Not sure what you mean by "marginal utility," and the ctrl-f technique gives no leads. Utility for whom? Existing home owners, people shopping for a house, and developers all have different interests. The problem I see addressed, summarized in the second sentence, is that the most productive (and therefore desirable) locations have rules that strongly discourage new construction. Whatever the intent of these rules, one consequence is higher prices that make it hard for people to participate in the most productive areas.