5 ms·

Why shouldn't they?

Nav_Panel 9y ago
Because they only are responsible for the property they own and not the property/land next door? It might make financial (or even quality-of-life-related) sense for a property owner to fight against construction next door, but I can't think up any reasonable or legal justification for why a property owner should have the power to prohibit construction next door...
- muninn_ 9y ago
  It's just a matter of degree. You're drawing an arbitrary line here. Nobody is prohibiting anybody from construction, they're prohibiting certain types of construction. You can build a house, it just has to follow the rules and guidelines that the community has established. It's a pretty common thing in the United States. There are historical neighborhoods for example. People pay a lot of money to live in these neighborhoods. You can't just waltz in and tear down an expensive house and turn it into a property with a couple of trailers on it. The area has housing problems, no doubt about it, I'm not arguing that they don't, but there is clear legal, and social precedent for establishing rules for communities throughout the United States.
  - Nav_Panel 9y ago
    > It's just a matter of degree Indeed. Communities can collaborate to keep things the way they'd like them by leveraging local networks. One particular and exciting example of this sort of policy is Redlining[1]. Agreements such as height limits aren't as bad (and are less explicitly racist), but it's a similar sort of idea. I understand the reasons why someone would want this for their neighborhood (and in most neighborhoods throughout the USA it's not a big deal), I just think in these examples where there's extreme tension between external demand and the desires of current residents, something has to give. > There are historical neighborhoods for example. People pay a lot of money to live in these neighborhoods. You can't just waltz in and tear down an expensive house and turn it into a property with a couple of trailers on it. I'm not against historic neighborhoods in general. I live in NYC and am aware of multiple, but I feel that some, such as parts of the West Village, have been harmful to the city as a whole. The point of a historic neighborhood should be to preserve exceptional period architecture: for example, the Upper East Side historic district in the low/mid 60s preserves a particular style of late 1800s row houses[2]. Many parts of the West Village that are historic are preserving a bunch of shitty 1 or 2 story buildings constructed when the area was a slum in the teens and 20s, after half the neighborhood was torn down to build the IRT 7th Ave Line (i.e. the 1/2/3 train) that would be covered as 7th Ave South[3]. To use a historic neighborhood as a chance to "preserve community" is, I think, an extreme distortion of intent (although the ultimate result for many well-positioned historic areas is preserving a particular sort of extremely wealthy community). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining 2: https://ephemeralnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/east61ststreethouses.jpg https://ephemeralnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/east61s... 3: https://i0.wp.com/www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/7av_w4.jpg https://i0.wp.com/www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/201... (note the 1 story structures and general architectural hodgepodge)
  - wbl 9y ago
    A common thing because of racism and wanting to keep poor people out. This is the city that Willie Mayes couldn't live in.
closeparen 9y ago
We move in anyway. We cram into existing bedrooms, increasing the number of incomes needed to afford a single unit. We mega-commute, taking up resources like train seats and roadway space for ridiculous lengths of time, consuming energy and releasing pollutants along the way. We crowd out parking, particularly when the room for us is far from transit and walkable areas. People we displace become desperate, which has public health and crime effects, or they move away, diminishing the character that made the place desirable. We live in the suburbs, depriving insolvent city governments of needed tax revenue. You can't stop us from moving in. Controls on internal migration in the United States are unconstitutional. The best you can do is allocate new units in proportion to new residents so that we don't wreck the existing market. Because how the fuck can your view, the uncrowdedness of your street, be worth more than everyone else's pursuit of happiness?
- muninn_ 9y ago
  > Because how the fuck can your view, the uncrowdedness of your street, be worth more than everyone else's pursuit of happiness? You're ruining their pursuit of happiness. They want to live in an uncrowded neighborhood that was how it was when they bought their home. If you don't like the home prices then don't live there. It's quite simple. I choose not to live there when I could because I believe the prices are too high. Instead of cramming my family into a crowded area I just live in a nice little home with a good income and space. You're free to make your own choice.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    So we can impose unlimited costs on others to keep things the way they were in the mid 20th century? Great! I pay ~$1500/mo extra to protect the uncrowdedness of Berkeley. You'll pay $1500/mo to restore the Rust Belt to economic greatness?

Why shouldn't they?

Because they only are responsible for the property they own and not the property/land next door? It might make financial (or even quality-of-life-related) sense for a property owner to fight against construction next door, but I can't think up any reasonable or legal justification for why a property owner should have the power to prohibit construction next door...

muninn_ 9y ago
It's just a matter of degree. You're drawing an arbitrary line here. Nobody is prohibiting anybody from construction, they're prohibiting certain types of construction. You can build a house, it just has to follow the rules and guidelines that the community has established. It's a pretty common thing in the United States. There are historical neighborhoods for example. People pay a lot of money to live in these neighborhoods. You can't just waltz in and tear down an expensive house and turn it into a property with a couple of trailers on it. The area has housing problems, no doubt about it, I'm not arguing that they don't, but there is clear legal, and social precedent for establishing rules for communities throughout the United States.
- Nav_Panel 9y ago
  > It's just a matter of degree Indeed. Communities can collaborate to keep things the way they'd like them by leveraging local networks. One particular and exciting example of this sort of policy is Redlining[1]. Agreements such as height limits aren't as bad (and are less explicitly racist), but it's a similar sort of idea. I understand the reasons why someone would want this for their neighborhood (and in most neighborhoods throughout the USA it's not a big deal), I just think in these examples where there's extreme tension between external demand and the desires of current residents, something has to give. > There are historical neighborhoods for example. People pay a lot of money to live in these neighborhoods. You can't just waltz in and tear down an expensive house and turn it into a property with a couple of trailers on it. I'm not against historic neighborhoods in general. I live in NYC and am aware of multiple, but I feel that some, such as parts of the West Village, have been harmful to the city as a whole. The point of a historic neighborhood should be to preserve exceptional period architecture: for example, the Upper East Side historic district in the low/mid 60s preserves a particular style of late 1800s row houses[2]. Many parts of the West Village that are historic are preserving a bunch of shitty 1 or 2 story buildings constructed when the area was a slum in the teens and 20s, after half the neighborhood was torn down to build the IRT 7th Ave Line (i.e. the 1/2/3 train) that would be covered as 7th Ave South[3]. To use a historic neighborhood as a chance to "preserve community" is, I think, an extreme distortion of intent (although the ultimate result for many well-positioned historic areas is preserving a particular sort of extremely wealthy community). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining 2: https://ephemeralnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/east61ststreethouses.jpg https://ephemeralnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/east61s... 3: https://i0.wp.com/www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/7av_w4.jpg https://i0.wp.com/www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/201... (note the 1 story structures and general architectural hodgepodge)
- wbl 9y ago
  A common thing because of racism and wanting to keep poor people out. This is the city that Willie Mayes couldn't live in.

closeparen 9y ago

We move in anyway. We cram into existing bedrooms, increasing the number of incomes needed to afford a single unit. We mega-commute, taking up resources like train seats and roadway space for ridiculous lengths of time, consuming energy and releasing pollutants along the way. We crowd out parking, particularly when the room for us is far from transit and walkable areas. People we displace become desperate, which has public health and crime effects, or they move away, diminishing the character that made the place desirable. We live in the suburbs, depriving insolvent city governments of needed tax revenue. You can't stop us from moving in. Controls on internal migration in the United States are unconstitutional. The best you can do is allocate new units in proportion to new residents so that we don't wreck the existing market. Because how the fuck can your view, the uncrowdedness of your street, be worth more than everyone else's pursuit of happiness?

muninn_ 9y ago
> Because how the fuck can your view, the uncrowdedness of your street, be worth more than everyone else's pursuit of happiness? You're ruining their pursuit of happiness. They want to live in an uncrowded neighborhood that was how it was when they bought their home. If you don't like the home prices then don't live there. It's quite simple. I choose not to live there when I could because I believe the prices are too high. Instead of cramming my family into a crowded area I just live in a nice little home with a good income and space. You're free to make your own choice.
- closeparen 9y ago
  So we can impose unlimited costs on others to keep things the way they were in the mid 20th century? Great! I pay ~$1500/mo extra to protect the uncrowdedness of Berkeley. You'll pay $1500/mo to restore the Rust Belt to economic greatness?