It occurs to me that renters e.g. in places like Manhattan and San Francisco can be just as NIMBY as homeowners in the suburbs. Both groups resist change in and of itself, while one group has an additional reason to oppose development (real estate prices), but it’s not clear to me that the absence of the latter consideration makes renters any more favorable to new development. Or am I missing something?
I like this take and set up. Usually the way I think about this problem is that it is a representation problem. Future generations are not a part of the decision making process. Or there is no way to implement a Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" in a zoning board, city council, etc. But I like your angle that it's an incentive problem and looking forward to part 2!
It occurs to me that renters e.g. in places like Manhattan and San Francisco can be just as NIMBY as homeowners in the suburbs. Both groups resist change in and of itself, while one group has an additional reason to oppose development (real estate prices), but it’s not clear to me that the absence of the latter consideration makes renters any more favorable to new development. Or am I missing something?
I like this take and set up. Usually the way I think about this problem is that it is a representation problem. Future generations are not a part of the decision making process. Or there is no way to implement a Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" in a zoning board, city council, etc. But I like your angle that it's an incentive problem and looking forward to part 2!