5 ms·

The NIMBYism being referred to isn't about foreigners buying property, it's about zoning preventing higher density housing and therefore constraining supply.

• toomuchtodo 9y ago
  In that case, there's only so much land. Should we change property rights so everyone can live where they want, skyscrapers as far as the eye can see? The solution is hard because existing property owners have more rights, incentives, and skin in the game then potential residents.
  • elyobo 9y ago
    That's a false dichotomy; you can allow more density without skyscrapers as far as the eye can see. The problem is hard because existing property owners have more rights, but those without have plenty of incentive and skin in the game too, as the overall cost of never owning a home is significant. Arguably the property owners should have less rights than they do when those rights are causing significant hardship and economic damage, which is the case.
  • jogjayr 9y ago
    > existing property owners have more rights, incentives, and skin in the game then potential residents. To be fair though "existing property owners" would also include people who own land in low-density-zoned areas and would like to build high-density housing on their property, but are prevented from doing so by neighboring property owners. It seems like their rights are also being infringed upon, no?
    • toomuchtodo 9y ago
      I would argue that zoning laws are not infringing on your rights as a property owner, no more than property taxes are an infringement. They are conditions of property ownership you agree to when proceeding with a transaction to acquire property.
      • closeparen 9y ago
        And similarly, a condition of living near other people is that you must accept the presence of other people and infrastructure designed to accommodate them, even if you’d rather it wasn’t there. If you don’t want to be bothered by evidence of human habitation, move far away from the nearest human.
        • toomuchtodo 9y ago
          No, that is not the case. There are no requirements that we must have density, that we must accommodate everyone who wants to live on a block or in a zip code. That's not how property works. Yes, there is a social contract that ends up codified into zoning/code, but that is governed by local government, which is governed by local property owners. EDIT @ closeparen: I'm really sorry to hear that you feel that me supporting property rights are cartoon villainy. They are the foundation of modern civilization unfortunately. EDIT 2: > What you're really talking about here is the political power over others that's embedded in property rights. This power is ultimately delegated to property owners by states, and the correct response (and what we're starting to see in CA) is the state seizing that power away from property owners and granting it to the population at large. You're suggesting subverting democracy. Again, in violation with a democracy that is the foundation of modern civilization. To deprive someone of living in your own home is not a violation of their rights. Socialism I can support, but not communism (ie "the state seizing that power away from property owners and granting it to the population at large").
          • closeparen 9y ago
            We're all going to learn some surprising things about "how property works" if cartoon villains such as you are permitted to ratchet up the homelessness rate towards 100% for much longer. In practice, though, responsible adults will step in long before that. California is already stripping local property owners of their anti-neighbor tools. If we want to regulate population growth, fine. But we will have to start rationing birth the way we ration condos if it's really so important to us to avoid the scourge of homes. EDIT: supporting property rights would be supporting the rights of property owners to build on their land. What you're really talking about here is the political power over others that's embedded in property rights. This power is ultimately delegated to property owners by states, and the correct response (and what we're starting to see in CA) is the state seizing that power away from property owners and granting it to the population at large.
  • maxerickson 9y ago
    The property rights will change one way or the other, given sufficient amounts of repression and time.
  • closeparen 9y ago
    Yes, every city where rents are high (so skyscrapers are economically viable) should be skyscrapers as far as the eye can see. The person who has the most stake in the land is the one who owns it, and that person should absolutely have the right to build a skyscraper on his land if he so chooses.
  • jordancampbell 9y ago
    New Zealand is geographically quite large (about the length of France and Spain joined together, and a little bit less wide) and we have half the population of London!
    • hotcrossbun 9y ago
      Although rather more narrow. Most particularly in a little town called......um... Let me think..... Auckland
  • gaius 9y ago
    The solution is hard because existing property owners have more rights, incentives, and skin in the game then potential residents It sure doesn't feel that way in the UK where noone seems to be able to stop every green space being turned into "luxury executive apartments".
• sliverstorm 9y ago
  If, not counting foreign buyers & speculators, low density housing is enough to meet demand and keep their country the way they like it, is it really NIMBY? Supply can only be considered constrained if there is excess demand.
  • elyobo 9y ago
    Agreed that the relevant factor is the "real" demand absent the additional demand from speculation, but what reason do we have to think that "they" (which includes me) want it that way? Some do, and they're the ones with the money and influence, but "they" are not a monolith and have a range of opinions. Auckland does appear to have legitimate supply constraints even absent demand (see articles with families living in tents, cars, etc in this first world country) and the geography does put constraints on efficient sprawl.