Why do some small-lot owners support the McMansion ordinance?

As I've argued elsewhere, the McMansion ordinance can only hurt the market value of a small home on a small lot.  I'd expect small-lot owners to know this.  That some support the ordinance anyway has always puzzled me. 

This recent economics paper might clear things up.  It claims the typical person's well-being depends on how he stacks up against his neighbors.  The author matches individual subjective ratings of well-being to earnings information, and finds: 

• Between spouses, "higher neighbors' earnings are significantly associated with more frequent open disagreements about money, but not significantly with the frequency of disagreements about household tasks, the children, sex, in-laws or spending time together."
• "Neighbors' earnings significantly reduce satisfaction with the amount of leisure time . . . and satisfaction with one's friendships."
• "The size of the effect [of neighbors' earnings] is meaningful.  An increase in neighbors' earnings and a similarly sized decrease in own income each have roughly about the same negative effect on well-being."
• "[T]he effect of neighbors' earnings is significantly stronger for those who socialize more frequently with neighbors but not for those who socialize more frequently with relatives, friends outside the neighborhood or people they work with."

This paper is controversial.  No one disputes that people compare themselves to their neighbors; the dispute, I think, is whether these comparisons have such a strong and systematic effect on happiness.  (Some argue the government should not intervene in either case.)

If taken at face value, though, these findings could explain why some small-lot owners support the ordinance.  And why neighborhood association officers -- who probably socialize frequently with other neigbors -- are the fiercest McMansionists.

I realize that other justifications have been offered for the McMansion ordinance, such as preserving privacy, backyard gardens, and sunlight.  Some people simply hate change (including change to "neighborhood character").  And I concede that there are McMansions out there that will make you flinch.

I don't dispute that people support the ordinance for some or all of these reasons.  I've just never believed that these reasons account for all of the support, especially among the small-lot owners who will likely take the biggest hit.   

Comments

[M1EK]

I don't think it has to be this complicated. We know that central city residents are disproportionately likely to be wealthy and childless (correspondingly less likely to be families) - thus, the expected value of their neighbors NOT building a big home exceeds the expected value to them of being allowed to build a big house themselves.

[AC]

Agree with all but the first sentence.

I'm trying to figure out _why_ the wealthy and childless believe the expected harm from having a big house next door exceeds the expected value of being able to build a big house themselves. The right to build big is worth a lot of moolah. They must expect the harm to be significant.

I think the question matters. Some motives for the McMansion ordinance (i.e., status anxiety) may be less compelling than others.

By the way, if status anxiety is at the root of this, I'd expect the wealthy to be less concerned than the guy in the middle, who stretched to afford his home, and can't possibly match the big house next door.

[M1EK]

I'm taking the chldless wealthy at their word that they intend to _live_ in the house, not treat it as an investment (which, by the way, is the way I view my home as well but recognize that most suburbanites and a non-trivial number of even urbanites don't). So in that case, the right to build bigger is worth something to _me_, but not to _them_.