5 ms·

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

by 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'
      - Ygg2 9y ago
        > The state can't pass a law saying your house was actually never yours Depends on context. A state can decide to nationalize private property.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        And has to compensate you for it.
        Ygg2 9y ago
        In theory, in practice might be a pittance + we won't send you to jail.
      - saosebastiao 9y ago
        The primary reason why some land is more valuable than other land is due to the government. When the government builds roads, pipelines, sewer systems, transit systems, schools, emergency services, etc., land values go up. In our system, the landowner profits from this, not the government. So if the government happens to do something that makes land values go down, why shouldn’t the landowner take the loss too? Privatize profits and socialize losses is an unsustainable modus operandi of government. You get what is on the deed, no more, no less. When you buy land, you assume risks. Just like stocks, there are no guarantees of resale value. The government can’t revoke your ownership (outside of criminal use of property), but the government is free to do any number of things that inevitably alter what some people will pay for it. If you want to counter that risk, go buy some insurance, an easement, or all of the adjacent property. The government doesn’t owe you a dime for allowing property owners to do something with their own property that you or potential buyers of your property happen to not like.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        Well, if the state does not compensate me as an owner for damaging things it will do around my property, i will lobby and vote against it and thus nothing will happen. How is that a win.
  - d4rti 9y ago
    So if we wanted to e.g. raise property tax, existing owners would be able to get damages for the difference?
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      Taxes are uncompensated damage by definition. Some people even call it..what is it?
- imh 9y ago
  Yeah that's totally true, but I feel strangely about it, like treating the YIMBY's as a force of nature takes the morality out of it. If I owned anything else, like a bike, then it's mine because the law says you can't take it. You can't say it's ok to take it because I foolishly didn't account for you changing the law and then taking it. You aren't a force of nature, you're changing something someone else bought. I'm all for affordable housing and mostly side with YIMBY's, but there's something weird about changing the rules and saying "sucks for you, shoulda seen it coming."
  - RHSeeger 9y ago
    Sometimes laws change in a way that makes something you own illegal. In those cases, sometimes you need to turn it in. Its rare, but it's something that needs to be taken into account as a risk when you buy something.

by 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'
    - Ygg2 9y ago
      > The state can't pass a law saying your house was actually never yours Depends on context. A state can decide to nationalize private property.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        And has to compensate you for it.
        Ygg2 9y ago
        In theory, in practice might be a pittance + we won't send you to jail.
    - saosebastiao 9y ago
      The primary reason why some land is more valuable than other land is due to the government. When the government builds roads, pipelines, sewer systems, transit systems, schools, emergency services, etc., land values go up. In our system, the landowner profits from this, not the government. So if the government happens to do something that makes land values go down, why shouldn’t the landowner take the loss too? Privatize profits and socialize losses is an unsustainable modus operandi of government. You get what is on the deed, no more, no less. When you buy land, you assume risks. Just like stocks, there are no guarantees of resale value. The government can’t revoke your ownership (outside of criminal use of property), but the government is free to do any number of things that inevitably alter what some people will pay for it. If you want to counter that risk, go buy some insurance, an easement, or all of the adjacent property. The government doesn’t owe you a dime for allowing property owners to do something with their own property that you or potential buyers of your property happen to not like.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        Well, if the state does not compensate me as an owner for damaging things it will do around my property, i will lobby and vote against it and thus nothing will happen. How is that a win.
- d4rti 9y ago
  So if we wanted to e.g. raise property tax, existing owners would be able to get damages for the difference?
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Taxes are uncompensated damage by definition. Some people even call it..what is it?
imh 9y ago
Yeah that's totally true, but I feel strangely about it, like treating the YIMBY's as a force of nature takes the morality out of it. If I owned anything else, like a bike, then it's mine because the law says you can't take it. You can't say it's ok to take it because I foolishly didn't account for you changing the law and then taking it. You aren't a force of nature, you're changing something someone else bought. I'm all for affordable housing and mostly side with YIMBY's, but there's something weird about changing the rules and saying "sucks for you, shoulda seen it coming."
- RHSeeger 9y ago
  Sometimes laws change in a way that makes something you own illegal. In those cases, sometimes you need to turn it in. Its rare, but it's something that needs to be taken into account as a risk when you buy something.