iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

"we understand the need for easy street parking, but affordable housing is too important"

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

The authors told me they couldn't identify the already-feasible projects, which is why they excluded them. (And reasonably so!) But then I don't understand how the exercise is supposed to work.

100

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

That's still missing the actual fiscal cost of fee cuts: ie. already-feasible projects that now pay lower fees.

100

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

Instead, they seem to be comparing the property tax revenue from the 30 new projects against the $25k fee cut. But this doesn't make sense: by definition, newly-feasible projects aren't built under the $100k fee, and don't pay anything. Thoughts? 5/5

120

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

They don't include the 100 always-feasible projects that pay less after the fee cut. Even though this is the entire fiscal cost of cutting fees! 4/

110

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

In general, the tradeoff is: - less revenue from the 100 always-feasible projects - more revenue from the 30 newly-feasible projects But this is not what they do: >Projects that would have been feasible even without any fee reductions are not included in the calculations. 3/

110

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

Suppose the impact fee is $100k, and 100 projects are feasible. If we cut the fee to $75k, then 30 more projects become feasible. Before: 100 * $100k = $10M. After: 130 * $75k = $9.75M. Cutting the fee lowers total impact fee revenue (before accounting for property taxes). 2/

110

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

This RAND report claims that cutting impact fees would pay for itself within 4-7 years, by enabling new housing supply and increasing property tax revenue. Do they actually show this? 1/ www.rand.org/pubs/researc...

rand.org

Understanding How Impact Fees Shape Housing Development

As California cities face growing pressure to build more housing, high development costs remain a major barrier. RAND researchers examines whether reducing impact fees could help make more housing pro...

181

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Curious how defenders of development charges range from "no effect on housing prices" to "prices go up, and this is good".

0110

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Why do people get mad at new apartments for being expensive, but are totally fine with the city creating entire mansion-only neighborhoods? If you think an expensive apartment isn't helping you, a poor renter, that can only be more true for a $10 million mansion.

3529

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Putting some numbers on this: If a 1.5 FAR sixplex can support $50psf on the extra density, then each site pays $100k. So if 1000 small lot sixplexes are feasible, the city could capture $100M. Why are we turning down $100M in funding for public goods?

061

Reposted by Michael Wiebe

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Vancouver folks: it's going to be nice on Saturday, so let's go walk around Shaughnessy before its mansion-only zoning gets turned into apartments! www.eventbrite.com/e/the-yimbys...

062

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Vancouver planners said legalizing sixplexes would create land value uplift that the city could tax to fund public amenities. But they allowed sixplexes only on larger lots. Why not do this everywhere? Why are we refusing to do land value capture? blog.michaelwiebe.com/p/why-does-v...

blog.michaelwiebe.com

Why does Vancouver treat new housing as a problem?

What Vancouver’s approach to land value capture reveals about its housing priorities

0393

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

What policy comparison are you making?

000

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

When we allow higher-density housing, we create value that can be captured for the public. Then why is Vancouver so reluctant to do this?

1151

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Vancouver folks: it's going to be nice on Saturday, so let's go walk around Shaughnessy before its mansion-only zoning gets turned into apartments! www.eventbrite.com/e/the-yimbys...

062

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

One argument for development charges is that they can enable more housing supply. When existing homeowners know that the infrastructure costs of new density will not come out of their property taxes, they are more likely to support it. Is there evidence for this?

161

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

In the upzoning case, the landowner does not get the increase in land value; when we tax the developer, they pay the land uplift to the government instead of to the landowner.

000

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

In both cases, the land value is created by society as a whole: public investments, economic growth, etc make the location more desirable. Under SFH zoning, this value increases gradually; upzoning unlocks this value in one stroke. Why don't we capture land value consistently?

0100

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

When a bungalow is upzoned for apartments, we capture the land value uplift to fund public amenities. But when a bungalow is zoned single-family and the land value increases 10x over 20 years, the landowner reaps a windfall profit when they sell to a mansion developer. Why?

2283

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 26/09/2026

"New residents need to pay for their own infrastructure. But don't worry, there's actually free money from landowners!" Isn't this puzzling?

071

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 25/09/2026

Why do we talk about development taxes as making "growth pay for growth", but then also say that the tax will be paid by landowners?

051

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 25/09/2026

Hard to overstate how crazy this is. Vancouver planners designed the multiplex zoning so that multiplexes would be barely competitive with single-family houses. If we cared about housing supply, we would make them *more* attractive, so they outcompete SFHs.

1329

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 24/09/2026

This is why we need to allow supply to keep up with demand. A luxury penthouse isn't affordable to someone at the bottom, but it still benefits them by absorbing new demand and preventing the cascade.

160

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 24/09/2026

When housing supply is fixed, a rich newcomer causes a demand cascade: they bid more for high-end housing at the top of the ladder, pushing everyone else down one rung, until the person at the bottom is priced out.

2195

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 24/09/2026

He says to allow ADUs and duplexes. (As if anyone disagreed.)

110

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 24/09/2026

Yes, allow both low- and high-end housing, of course. The problems start when there is high-end demand and high-end supply is blocked.

000

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

More density would change the neighbourhood, and that’s okay, because housing for people is more important. Full article: blog.michaelwiebe.com/p/how-vancou... 5/5

blog.michaelwiebe.com

How Vancouver planned a housing shortage

The city put neighbourhood character first and housing supply second

082

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

These examples show how the city has consistently prioritized maintaining neighborhood character over housing supply. If we cared about housing, we would allow family-sized ownership laneway homes and 1500sqft fourplexes. 4/

151

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

The 2023 multiplex legalization tells a similar story. The city deliberately nerfed multiplexes so they wouldn't lead to more redevelopment. Planners limited a fourplex unit to 1000sqft, when a detached house could be 2800sqft. 3/

151

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

If laneway homes were attractive enough, people might demolish and rebuild their primary home. So to make them less attractive, the city prohibited separate ownership; laneways could only be rented out. 2/

141

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

When Vancouver legalized laneway homes (ADUs) in 2009, the two guiding principles were “to retain neighbourhood character and minimize demolition of existing houses.” So they forced laneways to be tiny 500sqft garage-shaped homes. 1/

181

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

We all agree on substantive policy: 1) allow high-end supply 2) promote low-end market-rate supply 3) build subsidized housing The disagreement is whether 1) should be framed as an "affordability strategy".

1102

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

If you care about housing, you'll find solutions to problems. If you don't care, you'll look for excuses to oppose it.

0171

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

Yes, we know the direction of the result, the magnitude not as much.

000

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

Do both: build subsidized housing, and allow market-rate housing.

000

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

If you care about low-end housing affordability, your strategy must include allowing high-end supply.

110

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

If you add a rich person to the top of the housing ladder, everyone else moves down one rung, and the person at the bottom falls off.

100

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

How much public funding did the market-rate housing need, and how much funding did the subsidized housing need?

110

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

Are these used/second hand? Or new but outdated?

100

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

Yeah, it's an argument about optics.

110

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

It's insisting on allowing the market to work. If high-end demand is increasing, we need high-end supply to absorb it, or else we get a demand cascade.

110

Michael Wiebe @michaelwiebe.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

He suggests ADUs and duplexes. (Here in Vancouver, duplexes are derided as "luxury" housing!)

130