4 ms·
There's an easy solution to this: remove all notion of "viewing rights". You have no right to your view, or your lack of density, or any such NIMBY invented pro
by arjunnarayan 10y ago
There's an easy solution to this: remove all notion of "viewing rights". You have no right to your view, or your lack of density, or any such NIMBY invented property rights.
This works great for Tokyo, and housing prices are very cheap.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-c...
- jandrese 10y agoNIMBY types vote. You try telling them that someone can put up a hideous skyscraper between their house and the mountains/ocean/etc... and they'll have you on your ass in the street come November. Their parents bought that house. They've lived in it all their lives. Now you want to ruin the view and gentrify the neighborhood just because you think single family detached homes have no business being within a mile of the city center? Half of the legislature lives in those neighborhoods! All you are going to do is attract undesirables anyway.
- mjevans 10y agoIf viewing rights exist they should be taxed (at a premium). The valuation should be greater than the loss of all the affected height-lines.
- arjunnarayan 10y agoEasier still to take the Coasian view. Viewing rights (by default) do not exist. You are free to side contract with other property owners to ensure your viewing rights by paying them.
- jandrese 10y agoThat's a risky position IMHO. You create a situation where it becomes profitable to threaten to erect a tall structure in order to extort money from the neighbors.