zlacker

It's kind of a weird case where you have a problem of incentives. Almost any home owner (and I am one!) can benefit financially by ensuring their home in a given area remains scarce, so votes to prevent new housing construction. But the people who would benefit from that housing being built can't vote, because they don't live there.

Also, the beneficiaries of new housing construction are diffuse (if I want to move to Berkeley I want to have a choice of housing, but I'm not likely to go to community meetings to voice support for any particular project), while the opponents are concentrated (if I have a $2 million house right by BART in Berkeley, I have a very strong incentive to prevent new home construction near me, and I will definitely go to community meetings).

In a sense, this is a failure of democracy - there are parties whose voices are unheard but (arguably) deserve representation.

Even for people whose desires re: housing should be net neutral, it doesn't pan out. If I live in Berkeley but want to move to SF, I want to see SF build lots of homes and Berkeley to build none. But I can only vote in Berkeley, so my net voting behavior is anti-housing. Even if there is someone else in SF who wants the exact same thing but in reverse!

>>CalRob+(OP)
This seems like an oversimplification of the issue. The people I know who oppose development are all older residents who have lived in the area for decades and want to preserve their way of life. They’re already house rich to the point that it’s difficult for them to move somewhere else (due to Prop 13 in CA their taxes would skyrocket). On the other hand the younger newer homeowners I know are all pro development.