6 ms·

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 compens

by 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.

by xapata 9y ago

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.