4 ms·

> existing property owners have more rights, incentives, and skin in the game then potential residents. To be fair though "existing property owners" would also

> 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.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      >To deprive someone of living in your own home If you don't want to a skyscraper built on your land, don't sell your land. Your neighbor's land isn't "your own home," it's his. >You're suggesting subverting democracy. Subverting a council of the landowning aristocracy (local city govt) with a democracy (state government). >the foundation of modern civilization Single-family-home zoning, FAR, parking minimums, sunlight plane, height limits, etc. have barely been around 100 years. Laws dictating that all places must look like modern American suburbs are certainly not "the foundation of modern civilization."
      - mantas 9y ago
        > Subverting a council of the landowning aristocracy (local city govt) with a democracy (state government). Well, this law is proposed by state government (democracy).
        conanbatt 9y ago
        What a nuance. If people vote for a dictatorship, is it a democracy?
- conanbatt 9y ago
  This is an arguement of power, not of economic prosperity or liberty. The government can always come in an and kick you out. They can raise property taxes to 100% of the house value. It is within their capacity.

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.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    >To deprive someone of living in your own home If you don't want to a skyscraper built on your land, don't sell your land. Your neighbor's land isn't "your own home," it's his. >You're suggesting subverting democracy. Subverting a council of the landowning aristocracy (local city govt) with a democracy (state government). >the foundation of modern civilization Single-family-home zoning, FAR, parking minimums, sunlight plane, height limits, etc. have barely been around 100 years. Laws dictating that all places must look like modern American suburbs are certainly not "the foundation of modern civilization."
    - mantas 9y ago
      > Subverting a council of the landowning aristocracy (local city govt) with a democracy (state government). Well, this law is proposed by state government (democracy).
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        What a nuance. If people vote for a dictatorship, is it a democracy?
conanbatt 9y ago
This is an arguement of power, not of economic prosperity or liberty. The government can always come in an and kick you out. They can raise property taxes to 100% of the house value. It is within their capacity.