4 ms·

I don't think that answers they question of why the government should be able to do so.

by foota 10y ago

wlesieutre 10y ago
A more extreme example to make a point: because it would be bad if someone could buy up the house next to me, knock it down, and replace it with a sewage plant. At least in the US, a large component of limiting land use is to prevent someone from moving in with some undesirable feature and tanking an entire neighborhood's property values, which in many cases are homes that represent a large fraction of a lot of people's net worth (and retirement funds). Taken too far, this can lead to crazy NIMBYism that keeps anything from being built anywhere, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say "No, you can't put a landfill in the residential area that's been developed here for 150 years." Whether you think a 1000 ft. radio mast falls into that category is up for debate, but a full-on libertarian "I can do whatever I want wherever I want to" system wouldn't lead to very good outcomes.
- wlesieutre 10y ago
  If you want to look at it from an quantitative perspective, say a developer wants to build that sewage plant. He scouts out a location, decides he can make 2 million bucks on this project, and starts building. Once it's finished and the neighborhood literally smells like shit, the value of 200 nearby houses each drops by $100k. It adds up to a total loss of 20 million dollars for the residents. The net effect being that the sewage plant developer has built a sewage plant, made $2MM, and destroyed $20MM of property values. If everyone is looking to make a buck and has no checks on what negative impacts they can have on nearby property owners, then schemes like that would be happening all the time. Government oversight of land use is a means for communities to prevent it.
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  You were probably exaggerating, but "I can do whatever I want" is far from libertarian. Indeed, forbidding imposing uncompensated the externality of decreased land values in this situation is one of the defining aspects of libertarianism as opposed to, say, anarchism or socialism (where you pay a fee to the government - excuse me, the People's Party - to do whatever you want).
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    So who or what does the forbidding, and what would make the outcome different from anything that has ever happened in history before?
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    You are correct, but I'd like to clarify that property rights on land is one of libertarianism's big things mostly because rich folk own a lot of land. They'll defend having a "big government" that'll commit violence to protect rich people's land and they'll pay for that with taxes that they would otherwise decry as theft at gunpoint. Contrast this with their general approach to industry dumping carbon or other pollution into the air and suggestions to price in those externalities.
    - belovedeagle 10y ago
      You clearly have no clue what the term "big government" means. It doesn't mean your local Sheriff's office, at lower staffing levels than needed for the drug war.
- superuser2 10y ago
  A sewage plant smells. What does a radio tower do?
- foota 10y ago
  I wasn't suggesting that the govt shouldn't be able to do so (I generally think they should) but rather that the parent wasn't really replying to the point.
- pjlegato 10y ago
  The query specifically states, "...provided it doesn't adversely impact anyone else." Building a sewage plant or a landfill next to your house would most certainly impact your life.

I don't think that answers they question of why the government should be able to do so.

by foota 10y ago

I don't think that answers they question of why the government should be able to do so.

A more extreme example to make a point: because it would be bad if someone could buy up the house next to me, knock it down, and replace it with a sewage plant. At least in the US, a large component of limiting land use is to prevent someone from moving in with some undesirable feature and tanking an entire neighborhood's property values, which in many cases are homes that represent a large fraction of a lot of people's net worth (and retirement funds). Taken too far, this can lead to crazy NIMBYism that keeps anything from being built anywhere, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say "No, you can't put a landfill in the residential area that's been developed here for 150 years." Whether you think a 1000 ft. radio mast falls into that category is up for debate, but a full-on libertarian "I can do whatever I want wherever I want to" system wouldn't lead to very good outcomes.

wlesieutre 10y ago
If you want to look at it from an quantitative perspective, say a developer wants to build that sewage plant. He scouts out a location, decides he can make 2 million bucks on this project, and starts building. Once it's finished and the neighborhood literally smells like shit, the value of 200 nearby houses each drops by $100k. It adds up to a total loss of 20 million dollars for the residents. The net effect being that the sewage plant developer has built a sewage plant, made $2MM, and destroyed $20MM of property values. If everyone is looking to make a buck and has no checks on what negative impacts they can have on nearby property owners, then schemes like that would be happening all the time. Government oversight of land use is a means for communities to prevent it.
belovedeagle 10y ago
You were probably exaggerating, but "I can do whatever I want" is far from libertarian. Indeed, forbidding imposing uncompensated the externality of decreased land values in this situation is one of the defining aspects of libertarianism as opposed to, say, anarchism or socialism (where you pay a fee to the government - excuse me, the People's Party - to do whatever you want).
- mannykannot 10y ago
  So who or what does the forbidding, and what would make the outcome different from anything that has ever happened in history before?
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  You are correct, but I'd like to clarify that property rights on land is one of libertarianism's big things mostly because rich folk own a lot of land. They'll defend having a "big government" that'll commit violence to protect rich people's land and they'll pay for that with taxes that they would otherwise decry as theft at gunpoint. Contrast this with their general approach to industry dumping carbon or other pollution into the air and suggestions to price in those externalities.
  - belovedeagle 10y ago
    You clearly have no clue what the term "big government" means. It doesn't mean your local Sheriff's office, at lower staffing levels than needed for the drug war.
superuser2 10y ago
A sewage plant smells. What does a radio tower do?
foota 10y ago
I wasn't suggesting that the govt shouldn't be able to do so (I generally think they should) but rather that the parent wasn't really replying to the point.
pjlegato 10y ago
The query specifically states, "...provided it doesn't adversely impact anyone else." Building a sewage plant or a landfill next to your house would most certainly impact your life.