Targeted Persuasion - YIMBY
A different approach for different minds
As I write this, I can raise up to look over my monitor out the window to see the newly laid foundation of my neighbor’s ADU. This accessory dwelling unit is under construction in his backyard only after a somewhat contentious fight with various other neighbors and the historic district at large in which we reside.
I was not part of the fight. Had I been, I would have joined his side (pro-construction). Not because he is my friend. He isn’t (yet)—we’ve never met. He lives in Dallas having recently purchased the home here in Norman. From what I’ve gathered, he plans for his daughters to use it while they are in college here. The ADU is so he and his wife can have a place to stay while visiting including for OU gamedays.
To me those details are trivia. For many of my other neighbors they were important clues about how they might oppose his plans. Was this a secret plan to rent to multiple members of his daughters’ future sororities?
Questions that were raised included:
“Does he know about the restriction on more than 3 unrelated people living in the same house in Norman?”
“How does he plan to accommodate all the ungaraged cars?” — seriously, this was said.
“Will the ADU bring unwanted noise to the alley it will adjoin?”
They might as well have asked if he was planning on using it to house a sleeper cell of Texas Longhorns who would plan an assault on the Sooner homeland.
I was wise to stay out of the fray for two reasons. For one this isn’t my fight, and one should be careful about what battles one chooses to engage in. For another, I was likely to be unhelpful to the cause as I would likely have insulted the opponents (my other neighbors). I take a dim view on economic innumeracy as well as people who don’t respect property rights. I see in the opponents strong examples of both.
So let’s take this example and build something more constructive—an attempt at targeted persuasion in regard to new housing and renters in a rental market. For the latter my example is prime as we are one block from a major university campus that has, you know, lots of short-term residents with high turnover.
In one case I will be writing to convince conservatives and in the other progressives. What will be interesting is to have readers try to figure out which one they are as horseshoe theory is strong here.
For those who want a balanced explainer from an highly credible source, I very much recommend this short video from Alex Tabarrok.
As always:
****DON’T READ THE MESSAGE NOT MEANT FOR YOU****
Conservatives Only
A man’s home is his castle. This 17th-century proverb from English common law by jurist Sir Edward Coke isn’t up for debate. Yet too often we make challenges to it (some direct and others indirect). While it has to be balanced against true public policy concerns and cannot be used to justify transgressions on others, we should tread lightly when pursuing anything that conflicts with this core principle.
My desires to experience the world around me are limited in two important ways. The first is that I have limited resources in this world of scarcity generally. The second, which flows from the first, is that the desires of others might conflict with my own.
I may want an oak tree in my garden; so I plant one there. I may decide an existing oak tree in my garden is in the way of some other desire of mine; hence, I choose to remove it. These are my prerogatives.
I may like the sight of my neighbor’s oak tree looking out my own window including the shade it provides my garden, but if my neighbor has other desires for his tree, that is his prerogative. The best I can do is attempt to persuade him to change his mind including potentially paying him for the curtesy.
He doesn’t have to satisfy my desires nor should he nor should I his regarding my own tree.
Similarly, his choice to remove the tree and build an addition to his home is his and his alone. I may not like the sight of more house and less tree. My desire is in conflict with his, and his is the only one that decisively matters in this case.
If he desires to remove the tree in favor of a machine he will use to burn garbage sending noxious smoke out into the surrounding air and producing extremely loud noises, his desire has escaped his own domain. He is now encroaching upon my (and others’) property rights and creating a nuisance.
Nuisance law is a common law concept to handle such problems. But my desires being thwarted by his desires being fulfilled in the case of the home addition do not constitute a nuisance. I should not have a veto on his desires within his domain nor he in mine.
Might he be changing the composition of the neighborhood? Certainly. So too does every other little and large choice and change made by all of us living nearby. Beware this nebulous concept that can be too easily invoked as if it were itself a law of the Universe.
His private property must be respected as should the private property of all neighbors. If his choice to remove the tree and build the addition is a poor one, it is his mistake to make. He will bare the burden of lost property value.
Might the tree versus the addition have negative impact on my own property value? Certainly it could in theory. We could even suppose it enhances his value while detracting from mine. There are two responses:
The first is to understand how limited and unlikely this is.1 Quite simply this is not how conglomeration value works in almost all cases. Thought experiments like this lead to absurd outcomes where small changes external to a property have bigger impacts than large changes internal to the property. Another absurdity this leads to is assuming any external change will be detrimental as if the world as we see it right not without change is the maximal market value outcome. It is best to let those with skin in the game (risk of loss) make resource decisions. Do not be confused about it affecting your own personal value versus the general market value. I have bad news for you, you might be the outlier. Which leads to the second response.
I’m sorry, but too bad. The world is filled with things you and I don’t like or find optimal. One compromise we have to repeatedly make is to understand the limits on our desires especially when our preferences are in conflict with another’s where the other has a right to make the decision. As a corollary, be careful how certain you are that what you’ve fully figured out the ultimate truth in what you think you desire. Preferences change.
The governing principle here is not asking me to like the change. It is not suggesting the change is a net good. I should consider that it might be, and critically despite my frustration I must accept the change. For the next change facing opposition might be my own. Thus, a golden rule founded in property rights is the only reasonable place to live.
Progressives Only
An inclusive neighborhood is a thriving neighborhood. Too often housing policy has been used (sometimes intentionally other times unintentionally) to exclude others. New neighbors mean new opportunities. Diversity requires adding not subtracting or restricting.
An addition to a home to add bedrooms or an additional small unit in the back is an economic invitation for new neighbors. These people are future friends we have never met coming with ideas we have not heard. They will add vibrancy—much good, some bad. The story of change is always with tradeoffs. But we know tolerance is a virtue.
A neighbor adding an ADU for purposes of renting to college students cannot be totally surprising. Housing is scarce; so the economic case is obvious. We should realize this economic case reaches beyond the neighbor’s own financial balance sheet. Sure, he will likely make money from this addition. But the community itself will also benefit.
New, additional people have needs, but they bring resources to fulfill them. The addition raises the property tax on his lot, which is just a minor positive. More importantly the new residents will add to demand at local shops and restaurants. They will also add eyes on the street marginally lowering crime risk.
There are other benefits too. Suppose existing neighbors have a sudden emergency. The presence of young adults offers help that many older, current residents cannot provide. Case in point: the very hot, dry day two years ago with winds blowing 40 mph when a fire broke out on a neighbor’s back porch. The young college men who lived next door rushed to help keeping the fire at bay until the very taxed (that day was a very bad day for fires) firefighters could arrive.
Still, there is angst regarding the addition.
Might he be changing the composition of the neighborhood? Certainly. So too does every other little and large choice and change made by all of us living nearby. Beware this nebulous concept that can be too easily invoked as if it were itself a law of the Universe.
The noise they might add could be undesired. If it is too loud, we have nuisance law for that. But it likely also will be joyful. Those who will arrive will be starting their journey to adulthood. Who better to enjoy their voyage than those who can reminisce of our own past? Who better to offer guidance upon occasion when they need help along the way?
For too long and in too many places have bigotry and prejudice allowed exclusion. We’ve made great strides in defeating these evils where explicitly designed. The battle is not over, however. These impulses lurk in the shadows of policies we accept that, though unintentional, result in the same outcome.
That a homeowner among us is willing to take financial risk to help fight for a more accommodating community is praiseworthy. Abundance requires growth. Sharing and spreading abundance requires embracement. Thus, a golden rule founded in inclusion is the only reasonable place to live.
Another part of this response would be the potential for a Coasian bargain.