8 ms·

They'll have to admit that they're really just looking to protect their view I dunno, if I bought the most expensive thing I'll ever buy in my life and part of

They'll have to admit that they're really just looking to protect their view I dunno, if I bought the most expensive thing I'll ever buy in my life and part of what I paid for was a good view, I'd be pretty choked if someone put a big building up and took that away.

someguydave 9y ago
It's a fair point, which is why it's probably a good idea to try to work it out with the property owner rather that appeal to the government to put him in a vice.
- bri3d 9y ago
  In dense urban areas, increasingly the property owner is a complex series of foreign tax shelters that probably doesn't even resolve to a real human being (or group of them) in any human-discoverable way.
raldi 9y ago
Your comment begins, “I dunno”, but nothing that follows contradicts anything I said.
RHSeeger 9y ago
I guess part of the counter argument is that you did not, in fact, pay for a good view. You may have thought you paid for a good view, and the person who sold to you may have told you you were getting a good view... but, since you didn't buy the land between you and what you were viewing, you weren't buying that view. You were just lucky to get it.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Similarly, you might have thought you were getting clean air... You may not have legal authority over everything that happens, but there's more to the land you purchase, than the dirt within the lines. Otherwise, why does anyone pay extra for a house near a school, or in a happening city? They didn't buy the school or the city, after all.
  - twblalock 9y ago
    > They didn't buy the school or the city, after all. No, but they didn't buy the right to control the school or the city either. And if they thought they did, they were wrong and had an unrealistic sense of entitlement.
    - majormajor 9y ago
      "Sense of entitlement" comments like this show that what this debate really boils down to is control, with neither the "we have had control and don't want to give it up just because you want change" side nor the "we want to take some of the control" side coming off looking all that great. I happily wash my hands of all of it.
      - cloakandswagger 9y ago
        In all fairness, the comment he was responding to literally equated a nice view to breathable air.
      - twblalock 9y ago
        When a small group of people have most of the control, and they are using it in a way that hurts the majority of people, asking for a more level playing field doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
    - sliverstorm 9y ago
      So who does? People who don't live in the city, or attend the school? They at least have a stake, as evidenced by ballot items pertaining to the city and their school. Or do you believe that's wrong?
      - kelnos 9y ago
        Exactly: they have a stake. That shouldn't give them the right to make unilateral "no" decisions for everyone else, but that's basically what we have in SF.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  There's a problem there, in that "Right to a View" is protected in Common Law. There is specific provisions in the application of this law (like all laws), but this is a case in point that view is and has been protected. https://www.samuels-solicitors.co.uk/news/right-to-view https://www.samuels-solicitors.co.uk/news/right-to-view
  - raldi 9y ago
    Absolutely false in the United States: https://imgur.com/a/ksWTu https://imgur.com/a/ksWTu Source: https://amzn.com/0873376501 https://amzn.com/0873376501 And if you read your own link, it's the same in the UK.
    - junkscience2017 9y ago
      City and Town Councils in the Bay Area decline projects based on views and other issues all the time. They just label these as "aesthetic concerns" and tell the architect to try again. Ask any builder.
  - intopieces 9y ago
    The article you posted is about the UK and says the opposite of what you claim: unless there is a specific covenant for a view, it is not protected. Does this covenant thing apply to SF?
    - wlesieutre 9y ago
      I'm guessing no, but SF does have a concept of "right to light" that blocks construction of tall structures that cast "significant" shadows on public spaces. http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Long-shadows-create-political-hurdle-for-S-F-7382467.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Long-shadows-crea... >But critics argue that economic benefits don’t justify a violation of 1984’s Proposition K — the “Sunlight Ordinance” — which blocks construction of any building over 40 feet that casts an adverse shadow on Recreation and Park Department property unless the Planning Commission decides the shadow is insignificant. >The project would throw a shadow on Portsmouth Square between 8:05 and 9:10 a.m. from late October to early February. It would shadow St. Mary’s Square, also in Chinatown, in March and September. It would also shadow Justin Herman Plaza, at the foot of Market Street, from mid-October to late February, and Union Square from early May to early August.
- gregpilling 9y ago
  I bought a house in 1993 with a good view. Neighbor built house where front window viewed. Stupid me, should have thought about it but the lot was a drainage pond for a year or so after I moved in, then suddenly got filled with dirt and a house built right across my living room window. But it is my own fault for not noticing that the drainage lot would be eventually filled in. Oh well, was a nice house to live in and I enjoyed living there. Sold in 1996.
  - idanoeman 9y ago
    Yeah, that sucks for you. But again - you didn't own the view, you just expected the view to be there. If you wanted to own the view, you'd have to own all the land in eyeshot.
    - saosebastiao 9y ago
      You don’t have to own the land. A view easement would suffice.
  - EADGBE 9y ago
    > but the lot was a drainage pond for a year or so That's okay. Last laugh as I'm sure they're dealing with settling/water issues (especially if there's a basement). 'Member when builders used to build around the landscape? I loved growing up with 100-year-old maples (especially around fall) I 'member. Now they're stacking 3x median homes right next to each other.
- sebastos 9y ago
  But the market value of that house surely reflected the value of the view. So in very real terms, you paid for that view. You can argue that the entire market was over-valuing the property, but... that just seems kind of cold.
  - verletx64 9y ago
    Cold, but probably true. There are a lot of things people pay for that they have no control over when buying homes. It's kind of a risk assessment - 'I like this aspect, but how likely is it to change?'
    - ProblemFactory 9y ago
      Property developers in the city where I live are deliberately deceptive about this. They buy a large plot of land near the coastline, build condos on the far land side of it, and sell the condos advertising "bay views". Once the first block is sold out, they build the next one in front of it closer to the coastline, and sell more "bay views". It's crazy how they can get away with advertising the view even if construction on a building that will block the view has already started.
      - EADGBE 9y ago
        And yet you get penalized or outright refused to build up in order to get your view back...
      - saosebastiao 9y ago
        That is absurd. Almost feels like they should be forced to have a warning annotation at the bottom like they do with raw or undercooked foods on menus.
        smsm42 9y ago
        "Buying a house does not make you The God-Emperor and other people still are free to do with their properties as they like, including building on it in a way that upsets you". Yeah, probably should have that warning.
- imh 9y ago
  You did buy it if the law/zoning said it would stay that way. Hence people getting worked up when people talk about allowing big buildings where they currently aren't allowed.
  - jey 9y ago
    Quoting eganist from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15683853 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15683853: Sounds like the regulatory environment was an investment risk that wasn't taken into account. Persistence in regulations isn't some sort of right. Laws change all the time. Any investment made without considering the risk of the anti-NIMBY movement is no different from any other un-diligenced investment -- foolish. Holding an asset and concerned about the risk of diminishing property values in the face of shifting regulations? Unload. You'd do the same if you're seeing a company where you're Long run into potentially difficult headwinds.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      There is a case for owners getting some sort of compensation if such a thing happens. People do get damanges by a chance in laws, and generally the State should respond to those damages.
      - saosebastiao 9y ago
        If you wanna go that route, the value created or destroyed by a change in laws never belonged to the owner in the first place, and any increase in value created due to zoning should have been recuperated via a land tax.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        > , the value created or destroyed by a change in laws never belonged to the owner in the first place That's not really true. The state can't pass a law saying your house was actually never yours and you are now trespassing get out. Zoning is a rulebook the state invented, it has to be held accountable to some degree for it. I wouldn't call it reasonable for the state to turn the houses around you into garbage landfills and telling you 'tough luck'
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  You do pay for a good view - you just don't own a good view. GP's property value almost certainly went down after that other house went up blocking the view.
- ido 9y ago
  That's a good point but I'd argue the rights of the existing residents to a good view is lesser than the right of all potential new residents for reasonably affordable housing.
jey 9y ago
Did you really buy the entire cone of land/air that provides that view? If so, you have nothing to worry about.
twblalock 9y ago
I wouldn't expect you to be pleased about it, but you would have purchased a parcel of land, not the right to freeze the world in stasis in the vicinity of your land.
retailbuyout 9y ago
Yea, but it’s a terrible at convincing anyone but you.
adrianratnapala 9y ago
Then buy all the land between your place whatever it is you want a view of. Otherwise, why should you expect other's to lose out just for your own view?
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
If I invested a bunch of money in some company, and the company tanked, I'd be pissed off too. That doesn't mean I'm entitled to compensation for taking a risk that didn't pay off. I'm not saying I don't sympathize with people who lose their nice view. That sucks, and I'd be sad if it happened to me. The disconnect comes at the point where you think your right to a nice view trumps hundreds of other people's right to affordable housing.
ryan_j_naughton 9y ago
You should have bought the air rights for your view then... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights
TorKlingberg 9y ago
Totally understandable, but that doesn't mean the government should restrict others right to build on their property. Especially in a city, you should expect changes in the surroundings.

someguydave 9y ago

It's a fair point, which is why it's probably a good idea to try to work it out with the property owner rather that appeal to the government to put him in a vice.

bri3d 9y ago
In dense urban areas, increasingly the property owner is a complex series of foreign tax shelters that probably doesn't even resolve to a real human being (or group of them) in any human-discoverable way.

raldi 9y ago

Your comment begins, “I dunno”, but nothing that follows contradicts anything I said.

RHSeeger 9y ago

I guess part of the counter argument is that you did not, in fact, pay for a good view. You may have thought you paid for a good view, and the person who sold to you may have told you you were getting a good view... but, since you didn't buy the land between you and what you were viewing, you weren't buying that view. You were just lucky to get it.

sliverstorm 9y ago
Similarly, you might have thought you were getting clean air... You may not have legal authority over everything that happens, but there's more to the land you purchase, than the dirt within the lines. Otherwise, why does anyone pay extra for a house near a school, or in a happening city? They didn't buy the school or the city, after all.
- twblalock 9y ago
  > They didn't buy the school or the city, after all. No, but they didn't buy the right to control the school or the city either. And if they thought they did, they were wrong and had an unrealistic sense of entitlement.
  - majormajor 9y ago
    "Sense of entitlement" comments like this show that what this debate really boils down to is control, with neither the "we have had control and don't want to give it up just because you want change" side nor the "we want to take some of the control" side coming off looking all that great. I happily wash my hands of all of it.
    - cloakandswagger 9y ago
      In all fairness, the comment he was responding to literally equated a nice view to breathable air.
    - twblalock 9y ago
      When a small group of people have most of the control, and they are using it in a way that hurts the majority of people, asking for a more level playing field doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    So who does? People who don't live in the city, or attend the school? They at least have a stake, as evidenced by ballot items pertaining to the city and their school. Or do you believe that's wrong?
    - kelnos 9y ago
      Exactly: they have a stake. That shouldn't give them the right to make unilateral "no" decisions for everyone else, but that's basically what we have in SF.
crankylinuxuser 9y ago
There's a problem there, in that "Right to a View" is protected in Common Law. There is specific provisions in the application of this law (like all laws), but this is a case in point that view is and has been protected. https://www.samuels-solicitors.co.uk/news/right-to-view https://www.samuels-solicitors.co.uk/news/right-to-view
- raldi 9y ago
  Absolutely false in the United States: https://imgur.com/a/ksWTu https://imgur.com/a/ksWTu Source: https://amzn.com/0873376501 https://amzn.com/0873376501 And if you read your own link, it's the same in the UK.
  - junkscience2017 9y ago
    City and Town Councils in the Bay Area decline projects based on views and other issues all the time. They just label these as "aesthetic concerns" and tell the architect to try again. Ask any builder.
- intopieces 9y ago
  The article you posted is about the UK and says the opposite of what you claim: unless there is a specific covenant for a view, it is not protected. Does this covenant thing apply to SF?
  - wlesieutre 9y ago
    I'm guessing no, but SF does have a concept of "right to light" that blocks construction of tall structures that cast "significant" shadows on public spaces. http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Long-shadows-create-political-hurdle-for-S-F-7382467.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Long-shadows-crea... >But critics argue that economic benefits don’t justify a violation of 1984’s Proposition K — the “Sunlight Ordinance” — which blocks construction of any building over 40 feet that casts an adverse shadow on Recreation and Park Department property unless the Planning Commission decides the shadow is insignificant. >The project would throw a shadow on Portsmouth Square between 8:05 and 9:10 a.m. from late October to early February. It would shadow St. Mary’s Square, also in Chinatown, in March and September. It would also shadow Justin Herman Plaza, at the foot of Market Street, from mid-October to late February, and Union Square from early May to early August.
gregpilling 9y ago
I bought a house in 1993 with a good view. Neighbor built house where front window viewed. Stupid me, should have thought about it but the lot was a drainage pond for a year or so after I moved in, then suddenly got filled with dirt and a house built right across my living room window. But it is my own fault for not noticing that the drainage lot would be eventually filled in. Oh well, was a nice house to live in and I enjoyed living there. Sold in 1996.
- idanoeman 9y ago
  Yeah, that sucks for you. But again - you didn't own the view, you just expected the view to be there. If you wanted to own the view, you'd have to own all the land in eyeshot.
  - saosebastiao 9y ago
    You don’t have to own the land. A view easement would suffice.
- EADGBE 9y ago
  > but the lot was a drainage pond for a year or so That's okay. Last laugh as I'm sure they're dealing with settling/water issues (especially if there's a basement). 'Member when builders used to build around the landscape? I loved growing up with 100-year-old maples (especially around fall) I 'member. Now they're stacking 3x median homes right next to each other.
sebastos 9y ago
But the market value of that house surely reflected the value of the view. So in very real terms, you paid for that view. You can argue that the entire market was over-valuing the property, but... that just seems kind of cold.
- verletx64 9y ago
  Cold, but probably true. There are a lot of things people pay for that they have no control over when buying homes. It's kind of a risk assessment - 'I like this aspect, but how likely is it to change?'
  - ProblemFactory 9y ago
    Property developers in the city where I live are deliberately deceptive about this. They buy a large plot of land near the coastline, build condos on the far land side of it, and sell the condos advertising "bay views". Once the first block is sold out, they build the next one in front of it closer to the coastline, and sell more "bay views". It's crazy how they can get away with advertising the view even if construction on a building that will block the view has already started.
    - EADGBE 9y ago
      And yet you get penalized or outright refused to build up in order to get your view back...
    - saosebastiao 9y ago
      That is absurd. Almost feels like they should be forced to have a warning annotation at the bottom like they do with raw or undercooked foods on menus.
      - smsm42 9y ago
        "Buying a house does not make you The God-Emperor and other people still are free to do with their properties as they like, including building on it in a way that upsets you". Yeah, probably should have that warning.
imh 9y ago
You did buy it if the law/zoning said it would stay that way. Hence people getting worked up when people talk about allowing big buildings where they currently aren't allowed.
- jey 9y ago
  Quoting eganist from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15683853 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15683853: Sounds like the regulatory environment was an investment risk that wasn't taken into account. Persistence in regulations isn't some sort of right. Laws change all the time. Any investment made without considering the risk of the anti-NIMBY movement is no different from any other un-diligenced investment -- foolish. Holding an asset and concerned about the risk of diminishing property values in the face of shifting regulations? Unload. You'd do the same if you're seeing a company where you're Long run into potentially difficult headwinds.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    There is a case for owners getting some sort of compensation if such a thing happens. People do get damanges by a chance in laws, and generally the State should respond to those damages.
    - saosebastiao 9y ago
      If you wanna go that route, the value created or destroyed by a change in laws never belonged to the owner in the first place, and any increase in value created due to zoning should have been recuperated via a land tax.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        > , the value created or destroyed by a change in laws never belonged to the owner in the first place That's not really true. The state can't pass a law saying your house was actually never yours and you are now trespassing get out. Zoning is a rulebook the state invented, it has to be held accountable to some degree for it. I wouldn't call it reasonable for the state to turn the houses around you into garbage landfills and telling you 'tough luck'
oh_sigh 9y ago
You do pay for a good view - you just don't own a good view. GP's property value almost certainly went down after that other house went up blocking the view.
ido 9y ago
That's a good point but I'd argue the rights of the existing residents to a good view is lesser than the right of all potential new residents for reasonably affordable housing.

jey 9y ago

Did you really buy the entire cone of land/air that provides that view? If so, you have nothing to worry about.

twblalock 9y ago

I wouldn't expect you to be pleased about it, but you would have purchased a parcel of land, not the right to freeze the world in stasis in the vicinity of your land.

retailbuyout 9y ago

Yea, but it’s a terrible at convincing anyone but you.

adrianratnapala 9y ago

Then buy all the land between your place whatever it is you want a view of. Otherwise, why should you expect other's to lose out just for your own view?

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

If I invested a bunch of money in some company, and the company tanked, I'd be pissed off too. That doesn't mean I'm entitled to compensation for taking a risk that didn't pay off. I'm not saying I don't sympathize with people who lose their nice view. That sucks, and I'd be sad if it happened to me. The disconnect comes at the point where you think your right to a nice view trumps hundreds of other people's right to affordable housing.

ryan_j_naughton 9y ago

You should have bought the air rights for your view then... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

TorKlingberg 9y ago

Totally understandable, but that doesn't mean the government should restrict others right to build on their property. Especially in a city, you should expect changes in the surroundings.