There is a cost to restraining density

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Novacek

In other words, no, you can't point to any cases where it's happened.

Your claim, that you wouldn't be able to sell a 3/2 in NUNA for just as much as before is ludicrous. You'd have 10 people in a bidding war within a day.

Nonsense. The value of a 3/2 in between stealth dorms is MUCH less than a 3/2 in an intact neighborhood. This is common sense. This isn't about the effect of restrictions on zoning. It's on the ancillary effects of the lack of restrictions on zoning for surrounding properties.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by brattpowered

Right. Just like how the value of the shacks on Red River south of Cesar Chavez tanked--only the underlying land value matters now that skyscrapers will replace them. Those long-term landowners will surely end up in the poorhouse....

It sounds like you just don't want people different from you living near you. If that's your opinion, it's OK. Just call a spade a spade, to be blunt about your intentions.

We have students on both sides of us now--a total of seven plus girlfriends, etc. It's basically OK but it was better when we had friends next door.

It's a big jump from seven in two houses to as many as 24.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Novacek

In fact, in your hypothetical situation, restricting zoning cost you money. Before, you'd have both the individuals and the investors competing for the property. With more restricted zoning, you'll have less investor interest.

Wrong. The stealth dorms would eliminate the individual market and the investors would be willing to pay only for land price. The cost of improvements to the land wouldn't be recoverable.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Wrong. The stealth dorms would eliminate the individual market and the investors would be willing to pay only for land price. The cost of improvements to the land wouldn't be recoverable.

"The stealth dorms would eliminate the individual market"

Do you really believe that?

I tell you right now that I, as an individual buyer, would buy in that neighborhood in a heartbeat, but it's too expensive for me. I _wish_ a "stealth dorm" moving in next door would depress prices so I could get a foot in the door. But it wouldn't.

According to your theory, there should be tons of cheap houses that I could buy right now in NUNA, since apparently there's hundreds of stealth dorms already, and bunches of existing houses next to them.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

We have students on both sides of us now--a total of seven plus girlfriends, etc. It's basically OK but it was better when we had friends next door.

It's a big jump from seven in two houses to as many as 24.

24, 12 on a side, was already not allowed in new construction.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Novacek

24, 12 on a side, was already not allowed in new construction.

Six per duplex side is allowed. Thus the demand for occupancy restrictions.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Novacek

"The stealth dorms would eliminate the individual market"

Do you really believe that?

I tell you right now that I, as an individual buyer, would buy in that neighborhood in a heartbeat, but it's too expensive for me. I _wish_ a "stealth dorm" moving in next door would depress prices so I could get a foot in the door. But it wouldn't.

According to your theory, there should be tons of cheap houses that I could buy right now in NUNA, since apparently there's hundreds of stealth dorms already, and bunches of existing houses next to them.

You don't get it. The issue is that the sale price of a 3/2 built and finished out at the level a professional family buying would expect will be significantly reduced if it is next to stealth dorms. Doesn't mean it is "cheap" but it does mean if you has a homeowner invest the money in a renovation your investment is significantly at risk.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Six per duplex side is allowed. Thus the demand for occupancy restrictions.

Not for stuff that wasn't already grandfathered! Read the law. The new restriction would take the existing _3_ in a duplex side and reduce it to _2_. Literally someone having a couple of roommates would be made illegal.