Follow up on Foxconn from UW Professor, Kurt Paulsen

My post yesterday sparked a lively discussion on my Facebook wall, where I displayed cosmopolitan bias.

Kurt writes:

One clarification: the location of the proposed plant is definitely not rural, and I doubt many of the northern and western wisconsin rural voters who switched to Trump will never see any of these jobs. Our state workforce boards and e.d. agencies know that any job paying $53,000 per year and requiring higher levels of skills will significantly be filled by out of staters and in-migrants. There would be spillover to service jobs, of course, but not in rural areas.

I asked for clarification on where the likely location was, and Kurt suggested that it would be Pleasant Prairie, along the 94 corridor. I noted that while this wasn’t the far rural north, it doesn’t strike me as particularly urbanized, either, granted that it is largely a strip that leads into central Illinois small towns pretty fast.

20543717 10155854603136029 4719832062967507561 o

The Foxconn deal epitomizes the welfare state policies I discussed early after the election

Per the WashPo, the cost to the state is about $231,000 per job. That’s not bad, per se, when amortized across the possible multiplier effects of the factory and the fact that people need employment. It’s social welfare spending for conservatives in rural areas. We’ll see if they actually create 13,000 jobs or not. My guess is no, but some are probably better than none.

But this is what it takes to get businesses to locate in inefficient locations.

The loser here appears to be Ohio, in the entirely-too-predictable problems of noncooperative zero-sum games. But that part of the story is easy to discount.

Anybody who gives out the advice to “read first thing in the morning” has more self-control than I do

I’ve been trying this for a bit, and people, in general, are right. So right. There is a big quality-of-life difference when you wake up and read a book than if you wake up and read the dumb ol’ Internet, especially during the era of nonstop Trump coverage.

However, it also means I sometimes wind up reading all day because some books are really, really just that good.

I’ve pointed out elsewhere that reading is a big part of the scholar’s job. But there’s reading-reading, and there’s mucking-around reading, and while it’s hard to tell the difference sometimes, it’s pretty clear that I can muck with the best of them.


It’s good to be well-right. Right? Never mind. I’m reading.

In which I have a question about supply effects in segmented markets in Fischel’s Homevoter Hypothesis

I think all William Fischel’s work is brilliant–all of it, in addition to Homevoter, so I am so jealous most of the time– and recent empirical work from very good researchers like Vicki Been help establish the case that YIMBY advocates like to cite: home voters have a vested interest in housing scarcity because it increases the financial returns to owner-occupied housing. (I have some design quibbles with the Been study that maybe I’ll take up next week for anybody who wants to delve deeply into empirical nerdiganism. Just because you have quibbles doesn’t mean the study is wrong, btw.)

Scarcity rents are pretty easy to understand: people need housing, you restrict what they can have in a given location, and the prices stay high. In other words, it’s not just housing units getting manufactured. It’s housing units in specific locations.

Here’s the question: what effect does single-family housing becoming a luxury good have on the ability to garner scarcity rents? My brilliant colleagues Chris Redfearn and Elizabeth Currid-Halkett got me interested in high-status locations.

Units are obviously not all created equal, and markets are segmented. In most locations where scarcity rents are a worry, we are not really building any supply of new, single-family housing. We might be supplying luxury condos at competitive price points, but we’re not really building a lot of new, single-family housing, if any. In that instance, it’s entirely possible that single family housing in specific locations become part of the luxury market so that the addition of new condos may not have much price effect on single-family homes. In other words, in highly desirable locations, there are some buyers who are indifferent between a $750,000 condo and a $750,000 house so that the single-family home does not carry a premium. Those are location-oriented buyers. But since there aren’t going to be any more single-family homes supplied in that location, and there are probably buyers in segments of the market that do, very much, prefer a single-family home in that location over a condo, then it’s likely that supplying condos really does not exert much price effect at all over single family homes in a given location if there is a sufficient amount of demand for single-family housing.

IOW, lots of very expensive condos in Monaco, but do those really impact the returns to the mansions?

Now, if new supply opens up, there is probably some effect if places are seen are “less exclusive” somehow than they were before, and the very real issue that places can become less enjoyable if they are shared across bigger groups of people. (Don’t shoot the messenger, but I haven’t really noticed any super-rich people arguing for higher densities in Montecito.)

I really doubt that single-family homes in places with real amenities or other locational advantages really have much chance of lower value or even significantly dampened returns simply because of increased condo supply. It’s one thing to make sure *nobody else* can live in Santa Monica, but all single-family homeowners there really need to do in order to get their scarcity rents is to stop more single-family housing. And nobody is advocating for more single-family housing. Of course, there are individual problems, such as losing a view, because of building, but that’s different than new supply.

Connecting the dots on Getting to Yes on YIMBY (and more preliminary nuggets)

So I had to go through the “You’re a bastard” gamut with the last YIMBY post, as always, with the charge that I am just “concern trolling” and engaging in “performative wokeness” because “I’m raising concerns without answering them.”

First of all my wokeness or unwokeness. Either the ideas have merit, or they don’t. Just because somebody is supposedly “woke” doesn’t mean they can’t learn more to deal with white ignorance about race and how it works. I don’t want to be ignorant so when people tell me that racism affects them and how, I listen, think about what they have to say, and try to find ways to fix it my own interactions, institutions, and work. Does that make me woke? Unwoke? Who knows? I generally categorize it under “trying not to be an ignorant asshole.”

Second of all, stop co-opting the term “concern trolling” because you think your political agenda is so fragile it will collapse like a little glass ornament, never to be heard of again, if subjected to criticism or scrutiny. If what you want is worth pursuing, it won’t evaporate because somebody questions or criticizes it, unless you want YIMBY to be a cult. I frankly think such nonsense makes people look weak, like they want to be part of a cult instead of engage in the public reason that gathers support because the ideas are better than others.

Third, I was told that yimby people do not “need my academic study” because they know NIMBY “from the street” and having it screamed in their faces. Oh, please. I’ve been a planner in various roles for over 25 years. YIMBY did not invent NIMBY; it was the other way around. I had somebody leave me a death threat on my car over my advocating for a *freaking bus stop* in their neighborhood. A BUS STOP. Sweet cracker sandwich. I’ve heard it *all*, I swear, from people throwing tantrums about a new apartment complex to people throwing tantrums about not getting the same-sized speed bump as another neighborhood (IT WAS THE SAME SIZE, PEOPLE, IT JUST LOOKED DIFFERENT) to having a city manager pitch a fit because I noted that snow removal in the black neighborhoods of city X were done long after the snow removal in white neighborhoods (THIS ISN’T COMMUNIST RUSSIA YA KNOW). I have been hearing this crap since a lot of y’all were in diapers.

My age and my experience do not mean I know everything. It just means I got plenty of street cred in dealing with people angry about urban issues, and you ain’t the only sailor on the Pequod, Starbuck. Sometimes people are angry for petty, stupid, and selfish reasons (I AM LOOKING AT YOU BUS STOP WHINERS), but sometimes they have cause–legitimate reasons to be angry or afraid about what is going on, or what has happened before. Failing to take those people seriously is planning malpractice.

My work on NIMBYism and neighborhood opposition comes from the following premise: there is a significant moral difference between

(a) “I’m scared I’m going to lose my housing” in an environment where there is abundant evidence the speaker could, actually, lose their shelter and

(b) “This project will obstruct my viewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.”

If you can’t grok or respect that difference, then you’re reading the wrong blog.

Since I am a scholar, there are actual rules that guide my inquiry about neighborhood opposition instead of allowing me the luxury of concluding that anybody who doesn’t think the way I do is just an evil selfish bastard. Reviewers tend to notice such assumptions and treat them unkindly.

Let me connect some dots. I didn’t craft “answers to the concerns” because I thought the answers were blindingly, screamingly obvious People aren’t being shy here or coy about what they see as their interests. They usually aren’t.

If you look at the first two examples…there’s quite a bit there, but the major point is: new development won’t work to stabilize rents. And the second one is: why herein this location?

That second one is pretty complicated, so I’ll hold off on that. But the first one? That’s “Your plan won’t work for me.” What to do?

Show them real-world examples of when new projects and concerted efforts to build housing did work to stabilize rental costs, and how in doing that, it didn’t necessarily screw people like them over.

This rhetorical method is pretty common. When people claim that “gun control won’t work”, there are myriad countries whose gun control/gun violence situation suggest strongly otherwise, and we can cite those examples.

Counter-examples are not magic bullets for convincing people. They can hold out despite your good priors, certainly, as in the gun control case, with the response that “that place is not here.” You can’t convince everybody.

But my interviews so far have got a portfolio of scary stories about people getting displaced despite the building and construction they see around LA. I have heard more stories about friends/neighbors/family members/people from their church rent increases and people moving to Lancaster and Moreno Valley than I can count.

They are short on stories about how the new development helped everybody, and people got to stay if they wanted to do.

In terms of political communication, this is a hard narrative to disrupt with statistics or visions. 1) the stories are coming from people they know, actual people, and that is always a big deal (for all of us) when it comes to forming beliefs and how strongly those beliefs are held 2) There are cranes and construction everywhere right now in LA, and these folks haven’t seen any difference in their rental costs or their housing vulnerability, so their experiences, which are also powerful in shaping beliefs, are also not really validating the “Let us build more and things will get better for you” idea.

YIMBY advocacy rests, in part, on the idea that there is a housing shortage. My doubtful interviews are so on board that train. They just don’t think that the pro-development advocates, in whatever shape they come in, have the right answer for them, in their specific location, right now They cite Silverlake, Echo Park, Culver City, Hollywood, Koreatown. What can YIMBY hopefuls in LA cite?

Pasadena might be a pretty good counter to the litany of stories about displacement; My impression is they’ve done a pretty good job of leveraging their Gold Line stations. But Pasadena might seem too ritzy and exclusive to begin with. Long Beach, perhaps. Did we see rents go up slower there than elsewhere?

Is there a blog that lays out “Success stories” instead of statistics? That would be a good blog. It best not rely on “LOoooooooOOOOoook we got a massive mixed-use development with a Sephora and $22-a-seat-theater and NINE WHOLE AFFORDABLE UNITS. Yay, us.”

Success for my interviewees I think probably looks more like: look, neighbor Q added 900 units and rents have stabilized, and four years later it’s still majority Black/Latino. I know full well what a tall order that is.

In the third example, let me quote, again:

…But when I try to get anybody to listen about what we here in the building want, it’s buh-bye. Eyes glazed over, back to talking about they want. (Emphasis in speech; follow-up question: what issues do you want to talk about?) “Rent control. You bring that up, all these pro-development types go wild! Nothing pulls that mask off faster. Rent control is the worst thing ever! Out comes the statistics! Professors, all of them, going to lecture all day about how bad*** rent control is.” (***”bad” is drawn out over several syllables.) Rent control is bad for everybody but the current renters, say all the professors. Well, genius, we are the current renters, and we would actually to like to benefit.


Come on. Dude’s worried about rents, and he thinks people don’t care and talk down to him, full stop. It will not surprise anybody, probably, that elsewhere in the interview he called somebody an “Uncle Tom for developers.”

Now based on the rest of the interview, I think this particular informant isn’t really talking about rent control so much as he is talking about stabilization and community benefits agreements because he voiced worries about specific buildings in Inglewood and Hawthorne rather than entire neighborhoods, per se. (LA already has a rent stabilization ordinance; Inglewood and neighboring Hawthorne do not.)

We could also probably just write people some checks. There is so much money on the table for the stadium deal in LA that we could just make some renters’ lottery dreams come true and there’d still be plenty for the forces of capitalism to do its thing. We’ve done it with airport expansions. Anybody who doesn’t think this is a valid idea needs to go back and read their Coase.

Dots connected yet?

The other things that are interesting to me about the people I am interviewing:

a) cultural changes in the neighborhood rank pretty far down in what they list among their concerns. Anti-d people in these interviews can be taken at their word: they are worried about losing their homes. That strikes me as important because culture is always featured in academic studies of neighborhood change. I have interpretations of this, but I haven’t thought them through yet.

b) the anti-d people in general do not question the sprawl reform aspects of the YIMBY idea. That is, I’ve had nobody (yet) say “why can’t they build more the Valley or the IE?”

C) there’s more variation in age among my respondents so far (12) on YIMBY acceptance and anti-d people than online complaining about Boomers suggests.
It may very well be that the “No, never, NIMBY” (Thanks to Gary Kavanaugh (@GaryRidesBikes ) for that term) are mostly fusty old homeowners whining about parking.

But that age profile is not really the case with the anti-d interview subjects I’ve had so far. I’ve expected my younger respondents to be more accepting, more likely to use language that YIMBY has supplied to the conversation about urbanism and development. That hasn’t been true for the younger respondents. If anything, my younger respondents are using more militant phrasing, portraying their neighborhoods as under seige and the like, and framing their opposition in more derogatory language. My somewhat older respondents have been less likely to discuss pro-development people in angry terms, but somewhat more fearful in describing what they think will happen.

Getting to Yes with YIMBY in LA, or my summer interviews

I picked a fight with Shane Phillips yesterday by pointing out that YIMBY advocacy really, really, really does require tediously repeating the same points about what they are trying to accomplish.I was faffing around and avoiding work because I know better than to discuss anything with YIMBY folks online because a) any doubt exhibited tends to get you treated like the urbanism equivalent of Newt Gingerich which is futile and boring, and b) YIMBY is a complicated thing, with lots of moving parts, and it’s hard to have those discussions with people you don’t know, on social media which is limiting, when you don’t know much time they’ve spent worrying about these issues and you risk talking over people and telling them stuff they already know, what their local development context is like, etc.

Shane rather wryly noted that every single blog post or op-ed had be 5,000 words in order to make sure one hits every nuance, and that it is irksome to have to deal with critiques that just because you haven’t mentioned X, that you don’t care about X–cheap shot critiques. I was told, firmly, that YIMBY folks are on the whole anti-displacement thing; it’s covered, it’s been covered. They got it.

From what I can tell in my interviews with anti-displacement advocates–roughly summarized–they’ve heard the arguments, they’ve read the blog posts…and they in general don’t buy that YIMBY advocacy has their concerns covered. There are some who do and who vocalize quite a bit of trust in the overall agenda. But the ones that do not have some credible reasons for holding out, and those are worth discussing.

One of my points in yesterday’s discussion was, simply, that the rhetorical or persuasive burden on YIMBY advocates is higher than it is on the NIMBY component (which is different than the anti-displacement side, btw). I stand by that statement for the simple reason that NIMBY have policy inertia on their side. They have existing zoning laws on their side; they have federal home ownership favoritism on their side. They have close to 70 years of zoning being mainstream practice, at least in the US. It’s not just or right, necessarily; it’s that any form of progressive reform always has to break free of the event horizon of the status quo. Those who want the status quo only have to maintain it.

Given that progressive reforms have happened and do happen, it’s not impossible. It just requires heavy lifting, and some of that heavy lifting is tediously having to repeat the same points on the policy agenda to anybody who doesn’t run away quickly enough.

I’ve been spending my summer working on interviews with anti-displacement advocates (if you are reading this, and I haven’t pestered you, and you have something you want to say, hit me up (, and it’s been enlightening. It caused me to back up and examine what premises you have to accept in order to arrive at a yes for YIMBY if you, yourself, don’t have a preference for urbanism. And it’s a pretty long persuasive journey.

I point out this problem not because I personally do not support the YIMBY argument (I do, as I share a preference for urbanism), but to illustrate how it relies on multiple premises—just about all of which can be credibly contested—about the consequences of zoning and infill that you have to accept into order to get to yes:

a) that zoning contributes to sprawl (probably the least contentious);

b) that sprawl’s environmental and social consequences are sufficiently important to require that existing neighborhoods, which people may enjoy as they currently are, allow infill, even at the risk of crowding and other problems that strangers bring, in order to prevent the consequences of more building on the suburban fringe;

c) that infill development actually can fix affordability or the other problems wrought by exclusion/zoning/sprawl rather than just displacing and potentially harming existing residents; that is, it is possible to accommodate as many new people (or more) in existing neighborhoods, closer to the city center, as it would have been to put them in new suburban developments on the fringe to address housing demand in urbanizing metro areas;

d) that doing so will result in more good than harm overall; and for various subgroups at any given time,

e) that doing so will result in more good than harm *to them personally* overall.

That’s what I mean when I say that there is a big rhetorical burden. There’s a lot here.

I doubt A is particularly difficult to accomplish, and yet, you have to know that part in order to accept that infill is necessary to sustainability; otherwise, why not just put all the new housing we say we need on the urban fringe? So that’s something that has to be communicated, even though I think it’s fair to stay that, among the progressive left, there is a consensus about sprawl reform. That’s not saying that sprawl reform has democratic consensus. Does it? It certainly has a consensus in the professions. Either way, it’s hard to say “we need to put stuff by you even if you don’t like it” if people don’t actually believe that “elsewhere” isn’t an option. Otherwise, “elsewhere”, including the fringe, sounds awesome.

Point (B) is where we probably lose a subset of the conservatives. When I bring this up with students, they launch into a lecture about climate change and The Most Important Thing We Can Do Is Stop Driving (no, from what I can tell the most important is to stop eating meat, but consuming petroleum-based fuels is a close second, so fine)…and that’s a fine argument…for your choir. For people who think rolling coal is funny and SUVs are the right thing to do for their family … welp, the environment is just going to have look out for itself, and golly we would live next to transit and all, but the school over here away from transit is so much better, and well, does it really improve a school by letting in lots and lots of new families? Not really, no, so let’s not. Point B and Point E can merge pretty quickly. We might not lose people there politically–they might believe the argument–but putting it into practice in their own lives may be another story.

Point (C) is an effectiveness and risk argument. Urban reformers are absolutely convinced they can change cities–and cities do change–but I think it’s fair to say that this portion of the argument is about plan risk, and the latter parts (D and E) have to do with internalizing the risks, and as always, who has to internalize the risks of change.

In looking at my interviews for Los Angeles, of which I don’t have enough yet, my interpretation is that the anti-displacement folks interpret Point C in a variety of ways. These are first-run transcriptions, so caveat emptor.

Example 1:

“I think some people mean well, but they don’t get it. They think they are going to reform Los Angeles, like nobody has ever tried that before. If what they want to do with these new developments is so damn great, then do it over there on the westside first. And, uh, no, that is not happening, is it? It never will happen. All this talk about how great LA will be…it’ll start, and it’ll end, with building on black folks. All the rest of these people just making a lot of noise to justify westside gentrification getting extended south.”

(Follow up question: What would convince you that the plans might work to make the region more affordable?) “Just what I said: if new housing is so important, start on the west side. Show how it works so great over there before coming here. Those people can afford higher rents. We can’t. If their kid gets crowded out of a classroom because of new kids, they can afford to send their kid to a tutor or a private school. We can’t. But we’re the ones that are going to wind up getting crowded. Everybody wants to live over there on the west side anyway. But it won’t happen. So it’s on us, like it always is, to lose what we have now, because that’s feasible. God, it just pisses me off, now that you got me talking. It’s not right to play with people’s lives unless you know what you are doing, and I don’t think these people know.”

(Follow up question: do you think they care about what happens to Inglewood, or they just don’t know?) “It doesn’t matter, the result is the same. You got the do-gooders, okay? They care, they just don’t get it. Then there are the people chasing stadium dollars, and they don’t care who they step on. Different people, same result.”

Example 2:

“…we got the LA Times over there telling us every day about how we need all this new housing. We need millions of units, tomorrow! Sure we do. This project they want right here, that’s a drop in the bucket of that need. That need ain’t ever going away.That need is the excuse they got themselves to price people like me out, and that excuse will never go away…not after this development, not after the next hundred. They can’t build enough fast enough, so people here now, they just going wind up living out the desert, and they are going to sit out there waiting for all these new developments are magic, you know, fixing all the housing problems even though the only place they are going to build is here, on us. No matter what planners think they are doing, they are screwing us over, and if you speak up, they don’t want to hear it.”

Example 3:

“….talk a good game, right? They talk. But when I try to get anybody to listen about what we here in the building want, it’s buh-bye. Eyes glazed over, back to talking about they want. (Emphasis in speech; follow-up question: what issues do you want to talk about?) “Rent control. You bring that up, all these pro-development types go wild! Nothing pulls that mask off faster. Rent control is the worst thing ever! Out comes the statistics! Professors, all of them, going to lecture all day about how bad*** rent control is.” (***”bad” is drawn out over several syllables.) Rent control is bad for everybody but the current renters, say all the professors. Well, genius, we are the current renters, and we would actually to like to benefit. How about that? How about we benefit? Nah, God and Jesus Christ forbid that somebody black ever get a dollar benefit out of anything.” (Emphasis in the original. Follow up question: you mentioned a mask earlier, the mask coming off. What mask do you mean?) “The mask that they give a shit what we want. If they did care, they’d work for what we want instead of just preaching about how what we want is bad. They want what they want, they just want us to get out of the way.”

All show variants of Point C, but the first two differ from the last in the motivations the speaker assigns to reformers and their ideas. The shared concern: that urban reform can’t accomplish the holy grail of just sustainability–inclusive urbanization via infill–and that residents will be the ones paying the price of that failure, even if the vision was well-intended. The third vocalizes disbelief regarding care, and a pragmatic answer–if you want people to go along, build in tangible protections up-front to defray the risks.

W.K.C. Guthrie on inconsistency in Aristotle

I’ve been going along on my Aristotle study during the summer, finishing up, finally, the W.K.C. Guthrie’s wonderful Aristotle: An Encounter, which is volume six in his magisterial study of Greek philosophy. It’s been a slog; Guthrie gives thorough grounding to Aristotle’s science and his metaphysics, and thus there was ample skimming and cherrypicking, I admit. Aristotle’s metaphysics is important, objectively3; fortunately, it’s not terribly important to understanding his philosophy of human life (the way it is for Plato), as metaphysics both confuses and bores me. I have now reached a point in my life where I just will never know if I don’t understand metaphysics because I’m not smart enough, or whether I don’t understand it because it bores me and I lack the self-discipline to not be bored, but for all practical purposes, those amount to the same result: I don’t get it.

Guthrie is a kindly companion in these travels. From page 343:

The inconsistency between this and the requirement that happiness can only be achieved in a complete life has been pointed out by others. At any rate Aristotle warned us. The Ethics is no work of scientific theory but a practical manual, a guide to living. As it cannot aim at consistency, for life itself is full of inconsistencies.

He follows this up with an excellent note:

Consistency is a feature of τὸ ἀκριβὲσ, οὐχ ἁκριπβὲς ὁμοίως ἐν ἀπασιν τοις λόγοις ἐπιζξτητέον**: noble and just action admit of much variety and irregularity. Matters of action and advantage have no stability.

**Those things which are identical, for reasons beyond their control. Aristotle means the things in nature that do not make choices for how to be.

I spent the better part of two years translating Thucydides because the challenge. I’ve spent the last two years with Aristotle trying to get used to him, warm up, make friends, and translating him, working hard at it, has been a revelation. Much of his warmth is lost in translating to English, while none of his less appealing statements go missing at all.