6 ms·

I prefer a 0.5-1.0 acre lot to a lot slightly bigger than the footprint of the house it contains. I prefer to have the privacy that's afforded by having my hou

I prefer a 0.5-1.0 acre lot to a lot slightly bigger than the footprint of the house it contains. I prefer to have the privacy that's afforded by having my house set 40' back from the street, with plenty of space between my and my neighbors' homes, rather than living in a house that abuts, or is 6 feet away, from my neighbors'. I prefer a spacious driveway and an attached, heated, two car garage, to parking on the street a block from my house, and having to dig my car out after a snowstorm. I prefer to own a home that was built during or since the 1950s, when Romex wiring was original equipment, rather than own something that still has knob and tube wiring with decaying fabric insulation. I prefer a home built with drywall or rock lathe and plaster, over one built with wood lath and plaster. I've found that most pre-1910 homes I've examined do not have foundations or basements to my liking. I prefer to live in an area where I can leave my doors unlocked and my windows open at night without giving it a second thought. Or where, if I leave the house and realize I left the front door unlocked, I don't feel compelled to go back and lock it. I prefer to live in an environment where junkies and bums are virtually nowhere to be seen, rather than an environment where I have to be careful not to step in human feces when I walk between two parked cars. When I can get all that affordably in the city, I'll consider moving back.

apsec112 10y ago
If someone wants a house that doesn't have one of those things - one with a smaller lot, or less setback, or a smaller driveway, or no garage, etc. - and starts to build one, do you think they should be arrested and hauled off to jail? If so, why? If not, then please join us in voting for land use reform in local elections, since that's how things currently are in 99.9% of the US.
- rhapsodic 10y ago
  I don't know what you mean by "land use reform", but I'm a reluctant supporter of zoning laws. One of their redeeming features is that they tend to be enacted at the most local level. So the people affected by them are in a better position to change them if they don't like them, or they don't have to move far if they can't tolerate them and absolutely have to get out from under them.
  - apsec112 10y ago
    Unfortunately, that is often not the case, because people who work in a place don't get a vote, even if they far outnumber the residents. The most extreme case I know of is Vernon, California, where just 112 people lived in the city (all new housing construction having been banned), while 46,000 people worked there. The city government, running unopposed, voted to pay itself luxurious salaries and benefits, with one person having an annual salary of over $1 million.
    - ourmandave 10y ago
      Vernon and few other California town's officials have been charged with corruption according to the City of Bell wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal
    - mjevans 10y ago
      The solution I can see for this is to reform the tax code. Tax income tax based on where someone's office is; given them the right to vote there accordingly. Tax someone's property where they live/own/rent it (property tax should be built in to the rent, but as this will be passed on to renters, they too deserve to vote on local issues).
  - TulliusCicero 10y ago
    > So the people affected by them are in a better position to change them if they don't like them This is an oversimplification. If you look at the bay area for example and its housing crisis, the people who are most impacted are the people who haven't moved there yet but might do so in the future (and will pay higher future rents if housing supply does not increase). But potential residents obviously don't get to vote. And that's how you get into a situation where people can't afford to settle down in their hometown area, even when they have good jobs. The other thing you're missing is that you can easily end up with a tragedy of the commons type situation when local government is sufficiently fragmented. Again, this happens in the bay area: if the bay area was one city with one government, people would probably be fine voting for more housing supply across the whole area, but since it's split into dozens of cities, each one tends to suppress housing supply to boost local property values, instead arguing that some other city should be the one that provides more homes.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tbihl 10y ago
The problem isn't your preferences, but rather that so many people like you (I won't guess at your exact situation) express the same preferences only because so many of the significant downsides have been hidden by government funding models. That, and so many municipalities refuse to do the accrual accounting that would demonstrate just how quickly the suburban model bankrupts them. Suburbs receive a level of service from public entities that is far in excess of that justified by the private investment there. They receive bus funding from State government that doesn't count against their school budgets. The roads and pipes reliably cost more than the houses they service. There's nothing wrong with living in a rural house. But as long as money gets funneled disproportionately into these places, you should expect to have that decision second guessed. Plus, when all the suburbs finally have to face facts, delivering services to the suffering poor people left behind there will be an absolute disaster. Of course, our laws regarding financing and building anything that increases density in suburban areas are hopelessly awful too. We have a sort of donut hole, if you will: cheap financing for suburban houses, and for large apartment blocks. But the logical increment of a 2-3 story building with first floor commercial is left out. Ask for a loan on that, and you'll be laughed out the door for your silly request for a non-conforming mortgage.
- rhapsodic 10y ago
  City people use, and work at, the malls and airports and office parks and industrial parks and colleges and universities that exist in their suburbs. So the bus lines serve them as well. And it's to the city's benefit that suburban people can easily get into the city to spend their money at city businesses. So, while they may have some merit, I don't think your points are as cut and dried as you think they are.
  - taway_1212 10y ago
    If suburbs weren't subsidized, these people and businesses would reside closer to the city centre. This wouldn't impair city's functions in any way, but would save lots of money for the taxpayers.
    - 10y ago
sampo 10y ago
> I prefer a 0.5-1.0 acre lot This is a win-win situation. The more other people live in denser urban areas, the cheaper you can get what you want, and the closer your lot can be to a city.
rhapsodic 10y ago
This post got a lot of upvotes, and a lot of downvotes. I know because I watched it fluctuate up and down. Everything I wrote was merely my personal preferences. I wonder why so many people were upset by it enough to downvote it.
- criddell 10y ago
  Lots of people consider use upvote to signal agreement and a downvote to signal disagreement.
  - rhapsodic 10y ago
    >Lots of people consider use upvote to signal agreement and a downvote to signal disagreement. That's true, but unfortunate, because a lot of non-inflammatory posts made in good faith get downvoted to where they get marked [dead] simply because they express unpopular opinions. I tend to try to counter that phenomenon through upvotes. I won't hesitate to upvote something I disagree with if it appears to be getting unfairly downvoted.
    - mjevans 10y ago
      What's necessary is a downvote /placebo/ button. Make it look downvoted to the user that's downvoting. Have a separated (UI distance is important) button for reporting abuse/too far off topic.
      - criddell 10y ago
        I've always been a fan of Slashdot's system where you place a vote and then specify a reason. It's probably too complicated for something like Facebook or Reddit, but HN should be okay with it.
- sankyo 10y ago
  You shared a valid point of view and the only way to learn is by discussing things. People shouldn't down vote a view that they do not support as it only creates an echo chamber. The best way to change someone's mind is to listen to the supporting arguments for their opinions/beliefs.
jimbokun 10y ago
Sure, but you are just one data point, not changing the fact many young people prefer the trade offs offered by city living. I mean, your argument is pretty disingenuous, given your requirement of not being physically close to your neighbors. That pretty much violates the definition of the word "city".
__derek__ 10y ago
> I prefer a 0.5-1.0 acre lot You could have stopped with that. You'll never move to a city.
erispoe 10y ago
And that's perfectly fine. The only question is who should pay for the externalities of your lifestyle? Now that point is contentious, how much exactly does that amount to? Regulation distorts competition towards your lifestyle, by mandating large amounts of parking, for instance, or by letting cities bear the cost of what suburban dwellers simply do not want to see in their backyard, or by subsidizing your mortgage. As for 'human feces', it's not a problem of cities so much as lack of safety net. It's not because of cities that people are homeless, it's because we removed the infrastructure that prevented them to go homeless in the first place (social support networks, mental health support...). They are more tolerated in cities and cities typically invest in basic services for them, so that's where they congregate. Your ability to not step in human feces in your suburb is directly dependent on cities' willingness to provide services for this population (or they'll simply die).
- hueving 10y ago
  >Your ability to not step in human feces in your suburb is directly dependent on cities' willingness to provide services for this population (or they'll simply die) So is this an argument not to provide services for the homeless? If the result of providing support in the city is human shit everywhere, then maybe the homeless services should be moved outside the center of the city.
  - erispoe 10y ago
    Basic support to prevent people to go homeless is not only more moral and more humane, it's also cheaper. In California, I'd start by rebuilding mental health support. The State should do it.
pjc50 10y ago
So when you meet all those preferences, how long a commute do you end up with? If you get enough snow that digging your car out might be a concern, isn't the street going to be snowed in as well? (I'm not sure why you're equating urban=ancient and suburb=1950s, that's got to be specific to certain places surely?) I don't have a good feeling for how much space an acre is or what it would cost, so I went googling: high £1.7m in London suburbs, http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/land-for-sale.asp?id=72226 http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/land-for-sale.asp?id=72226 versus £55k http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/land-for-sale.asp?id=73298 http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/land-for-sale.asp?id=73298 remote Scottish island.
rayiner 10y ago
I live in a dense little pre-zoing code neighborhood full of tiny lots and no setbacks. I don't have a problem with people like you preferring big lots and setbacks. I have a huge problem with the fact that people like you have made neighborhoods like mine illegal.

apsec112 10y ago

If someone wants a house that doesn't have one of those things - one with a smaller lot, or less setback, or a smaller driveway, or no garage, etc. - and starts to build one, do you think they should be arrested and hauled off to jail? If so, why? If not, then please join us in voting for land use reform in local elections, since that's how things currently are in 99.9% of the US.

rhapsodic 10y ago
I don't know what you mean by "land use reform", but I'm a reluctant supporter of zoning laws. One of their redeeming features is that they tend to be enacted at the most local level. So the people affected by them are in a better position to change them if they don't like them, or they don't have to move far if they can't tolerate them and absolutely have to get out from under them.
- apsec112 10y ago
  Unfortunately, that is often not the case, because people who work in a place don't get a vote, even if they far outnumber the residents. The most extreme case I know of is Vernon, California, where just 112 people lived in the city (all new housing construction having been banned), while 46,000 people worked there. The city government, running unopposed, voted to pay itself luxurious salaries and benefits, with one person having an annual salary of over $1 million.
  - ourmandave 10y ago
    Vernon and few other California town's officials have been charged with corruption according to the City of Bell wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal
  - mjevans 10y ago
    The solution I can see for this is to reform the tax code. Tax income tax based on where someone's office is; given them the right to vote there accordingly. Tax someone's property where they live/own/rent it (property tax should be built in to the rent, but as this will be passed on to renters, they too deserve to vote on local issues).
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  > So the people affected by them are in a better position to change them if they don't like them This is an oversimplification. If you look at the bay area for example and its housing crisis, the people who are most impacted are the people who haven't moved there yet but might do so in the future (and will pay higher future rents if housing supply does not increase). But potential residents obviously don't get to vote. And that's how you get into a situation where people can't afford to settle down in their hometown area, even when they have good jobs. The other thing you're missing is that you can easily end up with a tragedy of the commons type situation when local government is sufficiently fragmented. Again, this happens in the bay area: if the bay area was one city with one government, people would probably be fine voting for more housing supply across the whole area, but since it's split into dozens of cities, each one tends to suppress housing supply to boost local property values, instead arguing that some other city should be the one that provides more homes.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tbihl 10y ago

The problem isn't your preferences, but rather that so many people like you (I won't guess at your exact situation) express the same preferences only because so many of the significant downsides have been hidden by government funding models. That, and so many municipalities refuse to do the accrual accounting that would demonstrate just how quickly the suburban model bankrupts them. Suburbs receive a level of service from public entities that is far in excess of that justified by the private investment there. They receive bus funding from State government that doesn't count against their school budgets. The roads and pipes reliably cost more than the houses they service. There's nothing wrong with living in a rural house. But as long as money gets funneled disproportionately into these places, you should expect to have that decision second guessed. Plus, when all the suburbs finally have to face facts, delivering services to the suffering poor people left behind there will be an absolute disaster. Of course, our laws regarding financing and building anything that increases density in suburban areas are hopelessly awful too. We have a sort of donut hole, if you will: cheap financing for suburban houses, and for large apartment blocks. But the logical increment of a 2-3 story building with first floor commercial is left out. Ask for a loan on that, and you'll be laughed out the door for your silly request for a non-conforming mortgage.

rhapsodic 10y ago
City people use, and work at, the malls and airports and office parks and industrial parks and colleges and universities that exist in their suburbs. So the bus lines serve them as well. And it's to the city's benefit that suburban people can easily get into the city to spend their money at city businesses. So, while they may have some merit, I don't think your points are as cut and dried as you think they are.
- taway_1212 10y ago
  If suburbs weren't subsidized, these people and businesses would reside closer to the city centre. This wouldn't impair city's functions in any way, but would save lots of money for the taxpayers.
  - 10y ago

sampo 10y ago

> I prefer a 0.5-1.0 acre lot This is a win-win situation. The more other people live in denser urban areas, the cheaper you can get what you want, and the closer your lot can be to a city.

rhapsodic 10y ago

This post got a lot of upvotes, and a lot of downvotes. I know because I watched it fluctuate up and down. Everything I wrote was merely my personal preferences. I wonder why so many people were upset by it enough to downvote it.

criddell 10y ago
Lots of people consider use upvote to signal agreement and a downvote to signal disagreement.
- rhapsodic 10y ago
  >Lots of people consider use upvote to signal agreement and a downvote to signal disagreement. That's true, but unfortunate, because a lot of non-inflammatory posts made in good faith get downvoted to where they get marked [dead] simply because they express unpopular opinions. I tend to try to counter that phenomenon through upvotes. I won't hesitate to upvote something I disagree with if it appears to be getting unfairly downvoted.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    What's necessary is a downvote /placebo/ button. Make it look downvoted to the user that's downvoting. Have a separated (UI distance is important) button for reporting abuse/too far off topic.
    - criddell 10y ago
      I've always been a fan of Slashdot's system where you place a vote and then specify a reason. It's probably too complicated for something like Facebook or Reddit, but HN should be okay with it.
sankyo 10y ago
You shared a valid point of view and the only way to learn is by discussing things. People shouldn't down vote a view that they do not support as it only creates an echo chamber. The best way to change someone's mind is to listen to the supporting arguments for their opinions/beliefs.

jimbokun 10y ago

Sure, but you are just one data point, not changing the fact many young people prefer the trade offs offered by city living. I mean, your argument is pretty disingenuous, given your requirement of not being physically close to your neighbors. That pretty much violates the definition of the word "city".

__derek__ 10y ago

> I prefer a 0.5-1.0 acre lot You could have stopped with that. You'll never move to a city.

erispoe 10y ago

And that's perfectly fine. The only question is who should pay for the externalities of your lifestyle? Now that point is contentious, how much exactly does that amount to? Regulation distorts competition towards your lifestyle, by mandating large amounts of parking, for instance, or by letting cities bear the cost of what suburban dwellers simply do not want to see in their backyard, or by subsidizing your mortgage. As for 'human feces', it's not a problem of cities so much as lack of safety net. It's not because of cities that people are homeless, it's because we removed the infrastructure that prevented them to go homeless in the first place (social support networks, mental health support...). They are more tolerated in cities and cities typically invest in basic services for them, so that's where they congregate. Your ability to not step in human feces in your suburb is directly dependent on cities' willingness to provide services for this population (or they'll simply die).

hueving 10y ago
>Your ability to not step in human feces in your suburb is directly dependent on cities' willingness to provide services for this population (or they'll simply die) So is this an argument not to provide services for the homeless? If the result of providing support in the city is human shit everywhere, then maybe the homeless services should be moved outside the center of the city.
- erispoe 10y ago
  Basic support to prevent people to go homeless is not only more moral and more humane, it's also cheaper. In California, I'd start by rebuilding mental health support. The State should do it.

pjc50 10y ago

So when you meet all those preferences, how long a commute do you end up with? If you get enough snow that digging your car out might be a concern, isn't the street going to be snowed in as well? (I'm not sure why you're equating urban=ancient and suburb=1950s, that's got to be specific to certain places surely?) I don't have a good feeling for how much space an acre is or what it would cost, so I went googling: high £1.7m in London suburbs, http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/land-for-sale.asp?id=72226 http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/land-for-sale.asp?id=72226 versus £55k http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/land-for-sale.asp?id=73298 http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/land-for-sale.asp?id=73298 remote Scottish island.

rayiner 10y ago

I live in a dense little pre-zoing code neighborhood full of tiny lots and no setbacks. I don't have a problem with people like you preferring big lots and setbacks. I have a huge problem with the fact that people like you have made neighborhoods like mine illegal.