3 ms·
The Author is 1/2 Right >The answer is to build. Build more fucking housing, just like Nolan says. But the answer is also to zone: To take away land-use decisi
by the_ancient 11y ago
The Author is 1/2 Right
>The answer is to build. Build more fucking housing, just like Nolan says. But the answer is also to zone: To take away land-use decisions from neighborhoods
that is where the statement should end, Take away land-use decisions from neighborhoods, and put them in the hands of property owners, if a developer wants to build something on land they legally acquired, then they should be free to do so even if the neighbors do not like it
- maerF0x0 11y agoAnd also facilitate a market for easements allowing the neighbors to cough up the dough if they care enough.
- pbreit 11y agoThat's completely idiotic. Communities are completely within their right to dictate terms of their community. If prospective owners don't like the rules, they shouldn't purchase.
- the_ancient 11y agoIf the rules are put in place pre-sale, with the agreement of the owners wishing to sell sure.. My problem is that communities change the rules with out the consent of the property owners. I do not believe in Democracy, I do not believe that 50.1% of a community has the ethical right to impose rules on the other 49.9% of a community