16 ms·

Local control of housing and zoning should be taken away and placed at the State level or above. Over time that will probably become just as corrupt and it will

by Top19 9y ago

Local control of housing and zoning should be taken away and placed at the State level or above. Over time that will probably become just as corrupt and it will need to revert to the local level again. I am amazed what people will complain about on my Nextdoor group. There is not one ounce of sacrifice in these people for even a 30 second increase in traffic or a change in the student:teacher ratio from 21:1 to 21.3:1. Maybe we’d have more money for schools if we didn’t keep having to deal with all the externalities developed by expensive housing and long commutes. Reminds me of that lady in SF who opposed a housing development recently because she said it blocked the sunlight to her zucchini garden. Now many YIMBY groups are adopting the zucchini as their logo...

xapata 9y ago
That lady may have purchased her place in order to have a sunlit garden. It's frustrating there's not an easy way for that housing development to simply compensate the gardener fairly for her loss of sunlight, along with everyone else nearby who is adversely affected. Of course, she could also be charged a fee for the benefits of increasing density -- more restaurant options, etc. -- according to how much she appreciates them. It's tough to calculate these things. So many aspects of our society seem forced to either-or situations when some compromise would benefit all parties more.
- jdavis703 9y ago
  There is an easy way: the developer just writes her a check equivalent to whatever it takes to rent a garden patch somewhere for 50 years. Not that a developer should have to do that for the land they have rights on, but if they want to take away her argument that's one method.
- fraserharris 9y ago
  You're implying that in purchasing a property you acquire a perpetual right to the sunlight that exists on the day you purchased. There is no such right. If this gardener wanted to retain that sunlight, they should have purchased the lot next door, put a building-height covenant on it, and resold it. They would incur a loss due to the covenant, but that is the cost of legally gaining the right to that sunlight.
  - dagw 9y ago
    There is no such right. Perhaps not in California, but it's worth noting that some places, England being among the forefront in this[0], do recognize the right to light is an important property right. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_light
  - makomk 9y ago
    Ultimately, if buyers believed that it would be necessary to go to that extent to to maintain sunlight in their own back garden, the original developer would've done so and we'd just end up talking about how states should override covenants instead in the HN comments about how people shouldn't have a right to sunlight.
  - athenot 9y ago
    Solar easements exist in many jurisdictions now (typically for solar panels). For Georgia: https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-44/chapter-9/article-2 https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-44/chapter-9...
  - xapata 9y ago
    While it's possible for any individual to put a price on just about anything, it ain't always easy (as you just explained). We've decided that it's the government's responsibility to help put a price on some of these ineffables -- air quality, etc. For a well-functioning market that doesn't get bothered by protests and other political machinations, the government needs to provide an easy mechanism to pay for whatever it is you care about. Any market which is restricted to folks who can afford high-cost lawyers and custom legal contracts, that market will be inefficient. Saying, "put a building-height covenant on it" in effect means "let's spend money and time on political advertisements and protests so neither of us are happy."
- malloryerik 9y ago
  Compensate her for her loss... Well, she's been very well compensated for all of the other people's work around her that has turned her property into a huge economic windfall for her while she was busy tending to her urban zucchini patch. Land value tax, please.
  - adolph 9y ago
    Taxing granny out of the family’s old home is a political nonstarter right?
    - refurb 9y ago
      Put a lien against her house - property taxes aren't due until either the owner's death or a sale. Granny gets to stay in her house and the market isn't distorted by perverse incentives. A win for everyone!
      - craftyguy 9y ago
        So when the county needs more tax $$$, they just need to off a few grannies to collect, right?
    - Redoubts 9y ago
      Sorry, my compassion for the tax problems of millionaires is somewhat low.
      - unethical_ban 9y ago
        Sorry, not all people affected by gentrification and urban growth are millionaires.
        Redoubts 9y ago
        They are in this discussion.
      - adolph 9y ago
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  I regret that this lady may be losing the ideal conditions for a hobby she enjoys. That's a terrible reason to block affordable housing development.
- friendzis 9y ago
  This is very utilitarian view. Quite probably purchasing zucchini at the market is cheaper than home growing few plants, yet to some people having home-grown zucchini (or apple, grape, onion whatever) is the goal. There are many properties of a property (pun intended) that different people value differently. Density is one of the factors and some people deliberately seek properties in low density areas. Each additional restaurant, each additional piece of property can be seen as destroying the fairy tale world. Compromises can only be found where all parties are to gain something. If one group are to gain something - housing in this case - and whatever they can offer will reduce negative impact to others - local residents - there is simply no compromise to be found because whatever the state of neighborhood was when they moved in, it was the best compromise in their view.
  - rahimnathwani 9y ago
    "no compromise to be found because whatever the state of neighborhood was when they moved in, it was the best compromise in their view" But the radius within which homeowners gain is wider than the radius in which homeowners bear inconveniences (e.g. shade on their garden). So of course it's rational for a homeowner to be pro commercial development in their city and near their neighbourhood (as it would increase demand for housing, and hence increase property value), but against commercial development near enough to affect traffic and noise levels.
    - friendzis 9y ago
      There is a problem with the mystic rational consumer, because theories assume that core goal of every market participant is to increase value. Taking actions toward increasing property value are only rational with intention to put the property into market. Without such intentions (e.g. owner plans to spend the rest of their days there) owner's interest is in keeping the property (and the neighborhood) as it is, maybe even decreasing real value. While increasing property value may seem rational to probably the majority, but given certain circumstances, preferences and goals the opposite can be easily argued to be rational. With modern metropolis lifestyle of changing home every some years based on workplace location, family size, etc. one is always in the market and increased real property value is quite favorable economically. For some groups changes in property value are seen as irrelevant in face of non-economic values.
- wbl 9y ago
  Zucchini lady moved into a suburb of one the regions growing the fastest, 20 minutes by rail from a growing employment center. She could have moved to North Bumfuck if she wanted to make sure nothing would ever change, and decided not to. When she moved in she knew houses could be built that would cast shade on her backyard. Why should society accommodate her wishes and not the need for more housing? Most countries don't have single family zoning in urban areas.
- nkrisc 9y ago
  If sunlight for gardening is that important, then purchasing a property in an urban center was the wrong move to begin with. She would have been better off purchasing land in an agricultural area if growing zucchini was that important as to drive her property purchasing decision.
whyenot 9y ago
I'm not sure it's a good idea to take away local control of zoning and other planing just because the result is something that YIMBY groups don't like. There is something very undemocratic about doing that. More housing and more density doesn't always make communities better. The people who live in an area, are voting in local elections and are paying local taxes should have a say in how their communities develop. Shouldn't they? Isn't that how our system of government is supposed to work? I mean I empathize with the YIMBY point of view -- I make about $56,00 a year as staff at a state university. That's right on the edge in the bay area. There will come a time when I can no longer afford to live here. I'm OK with that. That's how the market works. I don't think you have a right to live in San Francisco, or Malibu, or Los Gatos, etc. if you can't afford to live there. Everyone can't own a Ferrari. Everyone doesn't get to live where they want to.
- door 9y ago
  cities should be for everyone, especially cities like SF,LA. a city that is an enclave for the rich is a sad community. this isn't "how the market works". centralization of wealth and especially wealth in the form of housing is and has always been a result of state power. the fact that SF is unaffordable is the result of policy, not just the invisible hand of the market. And even if it was, that wouldn't make it OK
- ardit33 9y ago
  A city/town/neighborhood is part of a state and doesn't live in isolation. If you live in SF, your water comes from.... drum roll, Hetch Hetchy damn, which is a 3 h 49 min (177.7 mi) away. Now image if the people living where the pipes come along, decided not to have them in their backyard..... because of democracy, they vote to tear them away. No water for you.... Democracy can't exist without limits, otherwise you run the risk of 51% controller what the other 49% do in every way... Zoning laws are restriction on the rights of what can be build in a property, and they should exist in a Macro scale, Otherwise, your neighbors might decide against water pipes to come in your house, because democracy...
  - exabrial 9y ago
jseliger 9y ago
That's true and Tokyo is a good example of this: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-...
downrightmike 9y ago
Zoning would be the ultimate gerrymandering. Don't like your voters? Not only can you define specific areas to give your party the advantage, but you can now control who lives there, if anyone does at all.

by Top19 9y ago

xapata 9y ago

That lady may have purchased her place in order to have a sunlit garden. It's frustrating there's not an easy way for that housing development to simply compensate the gardener fairly for her loss of sunlight, along with everyone else nearby who is adversely affected. Of course, she could also be charged a fee for the benefits of increasing density -- more restaurant options, etc. -- according to how much she appreciates them. It's tough to calculate these things. So many aspects of our society seem forced to either-or situations when some compromise would benefit all parties more.

jdavis703 9y ago
There is an easy way: the developer just writes her a check equivalent to whatever it takes to rent a garden patch somewhere for 50 years. Not that a developer should have to do that for the land they have rights on, but if they want to take away her argument that's one method.
fraserharris 9y ago
You're implying that in purchasing a property you acquire a perpetual right to the sunlight that exists on the day you purchased. There is no such right. If this gardener wanted to retain that sunlight, they should have purchased the lot next door, put a building-height covenant on it, and resold it. They would incur a loss due to the covenant, but that is the cost of legally gaining the right to that sunlight.
- dagw 9y ago
  There is no such right. Perhaps not in California, but it's worth noting that some places, England being among the forefront in this[0], do recognize the right to light is an important property right. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_light
- makomk 9y ago
  Ultimately, if buyers believed that it would be necessary to go to that extent to to maintain sunlight in their own back garden, the original developer would've done so and we'd just end up talking about how states should override covenants instead in the HN comments about how people shouldn't have a right to sunlight.
- athenot 9y ago
  Solar easements exist in many jurisdictions now (typically for solar panels). For Georgia: https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-44/chapter-9/article-2 https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-44/chapter-9...
- xapata 9y ago
  While it's possible for any individual to put a price on just about anything, it ain't always easy (as you just explained). We've decided that it's the government's responsibility to help put a price on some of these ineffables -- air quality, etc. For a well-functioning market that doesn't get bothered by protests and other political machinations, the government needs to provide an easy mechanism to pay for whatever it is you care about. Any market which is restricted to folks who can afford high-cost lawyers and custom legal contracts, that market will be inefficient. Saying, "put a building-height covenant on it" in effect means "let's spend money and time on political advertisements and protests so neither of us are happy."
malloryerik 9y ago
Compensate her for her loss... Well, she's been very well compensated for all of the other people's work around her that has turned her property into a huge economic windfall for her while she was busy tending to her urban zucchini patch. Land value tax, please.
- adolph 9y ago
  Taxing granny out of the family’s old home is a political nonstarter right?
  - refurb 9y ago
    Put a lien against her house - property taxes aren't due until either the owner's death or a sale. Granny gets to stay in her house and the market isn't distorted by perverse incentives. A win for everyone!
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      So when the county needs more tax $$$, they just need to off a few grannies to collect, right?
  - Redoubts 9y ago
    Sorry, my compassion for the tax problems of millionaires is somewhat low.
    - unethical_ban 9y ago
      Sorry, not all people affected by gentrification and urban growth are millionaires.
      - Redoubts 9y ago
        They are in this discussion.
    - adolph 9y ago
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
I regret that this lady may be losing the ideal conditions for a hobby she enjoys. That's a terrible reason to block affordable housing development.
friendzis 9y ago
This is very utilitarian view. Quite probably purchasing zucchini at the market is cheaper than home growing few plants, yet to some people having home-grown zucchini (or apple, grape, onion whatever) is the goal. There are many properties of a property (pun intended) that different people value differently. Density is one of the factors and some people deliberately seek properties in low density areas. Each additional restaurant, each additional piece of property can be seen as destroying the fairy tale world. Compromises can only be found where all parties are to gain something. If one group are to gain something - housing in this case - and whatever they can offer will reduce negative impact to others - local residents - there is simply no compromise to be found because whatever the state of neighborhood was when they moved in, it was the best compromise in their view.
- rahimnathwani 9y ago
  "no compromise to be found because whatever the state of neighborhood was when they moved in, it was the best compromise in their view" But the radius within which homeowners gain is wider than the radius in which homeowners bear inconveniences (e.g. shade on their garden). So of course it's rational for a homeowner to be pro commercial development in their city and near their neighbourhood (as it would increase demand for housing, and hence increase property value), but against commercial development near enough to affect traffic and noise levels.
  - friendzis 9y ago
    There is a problem with the mystic rational consumer, because theories assume that core goal of every market participant is to increase value. Taking actions toward increasing property value are only rational with intention to put the property into market. Without such intentions (e.g. owner plans to spend the rest of their days there) owner's interest is in keeping the property (and the neighborhood) as it is, maybe even decreasing real value. While increasing property value may seem rational to probably the majority, but given certain circumstances, preferences and goals the opposite can be easily argued to be rational. With modern metropolis lifestyle of changing home every some years based on workplace location, family size, etc. one is always in the market and increased real property value is quite favorable economically. For some groups changes in property value are seen as irrelevant in face of non-economic values.
wbl 9y ago
Zucchini lady moved into a suburb of one the regions growing the fastest, 20 minutes by rail from a growing employment center. She could have moved to North Bumfuck if she wanted to make sure nothing would ever change, and decided not to. When she moved in she knew houses could be built that would cast shade on her backyard. Why should society accommodate her wishes and not the need for more housing? Most countries don't have single family zoning in urban areas.
nkrisc 9y ago
If sunlight for gardening is that important, then purchasing a property in an urban center was the wrong move to begin with. She would have been better off purchasing land in an agricultural area if growing zucchini was that important as to drive her property purchasing decision.

whyenot 9y ago

I'm not sure it's a good idea to take away local control of zoning and other planing just because the result is something that YIMBY groups don't like. There is something very undemocratic about doing that. More housing and more density doesn't always make communities better. The people who live in an area, are voting in local elections and are paying local taxes should have a say in how their communities develop. Shouldn't they? Isn't that how our system of government is supposed to work? I mean I empathize with the YIMBY point of view -- I make about $56,00 a year as staff at a state university. That's right on the edge in the bay area. There will come a time when I can no longer afford to live here. I'm OK with that. That's how the market works. I don't think you have a right to live in San Francisco, or Malibu, or Los Gatos, etc. if you can't afford to live there. Everyone can't own a Ferrari. Everyone doesn't get to live where they want to.

door 9y ago
cities should be for everyone, especially cities like SF,LA. a city that is an enclave for the rich is a sad community. this isn't "how the market works". centralization of wealth and especially wealth in the form of housing is and has always been a result of state power. the fact that SF is unaffordable is the result of policy, not just the invisible hand of the market. And even if it was, that wouldn't make it OK
ardit33 9y ago
A city/town/neighborhood is part of a state and doesn't live in isolation. If you live in SF, your water comes from.... drum roll, Hetch Hetchy damn, which is a 3 h 49 min (177.7 mi) away. Now image if the people living where the pipes come along, decided not to have them in their backyard..... because of democracy, they vote to tear them away. No water for you.... Democracy can't exist without limits, otherwise you run the risk of 51% controller what the other 49% do in every way... Zoning laws are restriction on the rights of what can be build in a property, and they should exist in a Macro scale, Otherwise, your neighbors might decide against water pipes to come in your house, because democracy...
- exabrial 9y ago

jseliger 9y ago

That's true and Tokyo is a good example of this: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-...

downrightmike 9y ago

Zoning would be the ultimate gerrymandering. Don't like your voters? Not only can you define specific areas to give your party the advantage, but you can now control who lives there, if anyone does at all.