Hey folks! Today's statewide NIMBY convening (Livable California meeting) is about to begin! The special guest is UBC architecture professor Patrick Condon, who's here to tell us why zoning and NIMBYism isn't the problem...or something.

Here we go!

An interesting tidbit today: the chat questions are closed, and can only be seen by the moderators.

Rick Hall gives a disclaimer that the YIMBYs (i.e. me) will be here to "tweet mockingly" (true) and to just ignore us.

Jill Stewart is introducing Condon now, reading a pre-prepared statement that sounds like it's from a book jacket.

Ah, here we go: now she's plugging his book. Sounds right.

Condon starts off by saying that he's "basically a pro-density guy" in that it can promote access to commercial services, promote walkability, make for a more sustainable city, etc. But says density hasn't made Vancouver more affordable.

This chart shows that Condon is right. Or something.

Condon shooting down the claims that density = COVID spread, explains the difference between overcrowding and density.

Author's note: I *really* wish the chat wasn't turned off so I could see the responses, lol

Condon says the *real* driver of the housing crisis is urban land prices (and presumably not zoning restrictions or anything else)

Condon bringing it to Los Angeles now, says "the real problem" is the inflation of land value, claims it's "not the cost of building a building itself"

Condon says during his research he discovered a San Franciscan named Henry George who had "an incredible insight!" Discusses George's book Progress & Poverty, begins educating the call about land value taxation.

Author's note: hell yeah!

Condon now explaining land rents and land wealth, that over time the value of individual labor gradually becomes absorbed in the price of land.

"It's tragic that we don't remember him in the American conversation about real estate"

Condon now explaining the widening gap between wages and productivity gains over time

Ah, here we go: this is what I expected. Condon says that after years of he research, he discovered that because upzoning and density increases raise the price of land, it won't lead to additional affordability benefits.

Author's note: this is a huge oversimplification

Condon now extolling the virtues of the Vienna model of social housing instead

Author's note: I too love Vienna, and once again, I *really* wish I could see the chat comments right now

Seriously, I would kill to see the chat reactions to this slide

Condon says it's necessary for the public sector to enter the land market. He favors strategies "at the local level" patterned on Henry George's ideas to tackle the price of urban land.

Author's note: sounds like someone hasn't heard of Prop 13???

Condon now recommending Cambridge's affordable housing zoning overlay (something YIMBYs fought hard for). Says it doesn't change existing zoning (???), but allows density increases for 100% additional affordability.

Condon says that allowing additional density does not "discipline the land market" and will just feed inflationary pressure on urban land markets. "This is something I've come to believe."

Author's note: sigh.

Condon claims that adding additional housing supply is really just "increasing the capacity of land to hold that supply" and only increases the value of land to the benefit of speculators.

"No density increases except for affordable housing" is dumb, but also, I guaran-fucking-tee you most of the people on this chat are recoiling at these images

Condon now extolling Portland's new upzoning scheme due to the affordability component, because it has the effect of "disciplining the market."

Thinks California should take a look at this.

Condon says we can get affordable housing without taxpayer subsidy by having municipalities control density and land values and via taxes on development.

"This is the modern way to use the principles Henry George espoused."

On to audience questions! The first is a woman who wants to work on this with her congressman, but says his staff will ask if Condon's work is peer-reviewed.

Condon: "it's the best scholarship that I could do"

Author's note: sounds like that's a "no"

Sunnyvale councilmember Michael Goldman is here! Is very glad Condon found out that "density increases prices, surprise surprise", essentially asks why we can't just house people further away and let them commute in via transit

Condon notes he's not a transit, real estate or sociology expert (lol), but that he's at an advantage because as a "scholar" he can see how all these things fit together.

Then goes on a little tirade about neoliberalism and "the power of the belief in supply and demand"

Back to Goldman now who says there's "an overwhelming desire" for a single-family home, and people will get it by going to Houston. Claims there's a "metaphysical limit to what we can tolerate" re: density

Condon counters by correctly noting that people love Manhattan, that many more people would love to live there if it were affordable, and that people want/like different things.

Condon goes on to say that he advances the ideal state of "the streetcar city" with various densities, which is what cities looked like prior to the invention of the car (and during the time of Henry George).

Livable California President Rick Hall jumps in with his own question, which basically boils down to: why do we have to build more housing and "force" density into urban areas when everyone can now telework from places with lower land values

Condon correctly notes that even if we did see some people want to move out of urban areas, it doesn't solve the overall issue that Henry George describes, because land values would rise there too. Says sprawl isn't the way to go.

Condon goes on to claim that "the core of our problem" is that people think the solution to high prices is adding supply, says that's not working and hasn't worked.

Author's note: how can we know it's not working if we haven't tried it???

Condon says Vancouver fourplex-ed the whole city over about a decade. Says there are some benefits, but it hasn't reduced real estate prices, people thought it would, but they're wrong, have been proven incorrect.

Condon cites Santa Monica as an example of a city that's done a good job of balancing housing needs over time, and now I really need a drink

Fran Offenhauser: says that she's an "unusual person" as a historical preservationist/activist trying to "save" Los Angeles, and because she's a developer who owns multiple properties!

Wants advice on how to explain all of this to city planners who don't understand economics.

Condon: the best way to do this is to buy my book! Again discusses "disciplining the land market," makes the case that upzoning + density increases won't lead to increases in affordability because the land price increases override other savings.

Barbara Broide from LA takes a moment to diss CA YIMBY for promoting "the market model," is very concerned about upzoning near transit. Wants to know if Condon has any evidence to validate her preexisting position that new MR housing near transit is bad.

Condon didn't really answer that question, lol

Marin resident and Livable California founder Susan Kirsch is here! Asks if Condon has any comment on the idea that local control has produced systemic racism and inequities, because she hears a lot of that concern about Marin.

Author's note: l o l

Condon continues with the "more supply won't solve the housing crisis" schtick, but does say that cities will never take back control if they don't propose real solutions (like Cambridge did) to address affordability.

Now onto Rick Hall's presentation on SB9 & 10.

The classist language here "market-rate rentals overrunning homeowner areas" is so incredibly transparent and gross

Now onto comments. The first is standard fare: Mario from Santa Monica wants to know about parking requirements or if that's been stripped out, is very concerned about a lack of parking

Santa Monica NIMBY Marc Verville is incredibly confused about the Cambridge affordable housing model, is talking about using it to make projects pencil out somehow

Cupertino NIMBY Danessa is here to complain about SB35 and density bonuses for affordable housing, whining that the affordable units being built are "essentially useless" because they're not as big as she'd like

LA NIMBY/preservationist/developer Fran Offenhauser, who complained earlier that planners don't understand economics, claims these bills will exacerbate the housing crisis and that "trickle-down" doesn't help

Christina Spitz from uberwealthy Pacific Palisades is very concerned that these bills (SB9 &10) are going to be up for votes soon, claims LA's city analyst wants to oppose these bills, urges people to write in and support Paul Koretz's opposition to them

Burbank Councilmember Emily Gabel Luddy is talking about how the state has overlooked homeownership, the creation of a permanent class of renters, and that we need to get people into homes to start building wealth

Santa Monica NIMBY Mario thinks we can solve the housing affordability issue by raising the minimum wage to $24/hour.

Doesn't think we can get to a non-fossil fuel economy by 2045 "without building net-zero buildings"

Author's note: literally what

Jill Stewart had to drop off the call about 30 minutes ago and I've gotta say, this is much less entertaining without her constant interruptions and weird tangents.

Someone asks what the League of Cities positions are on SB9 & 10.

Pleasanton Councilmember and landlord Julie Testa goes on a long diatribe, says the league has chosen to "oppose unless amended" which she's mad about (she wanted straight opposition)