5 ms·

I don't see how this problem can be solved in the short-run with anything other than money. Just buy out the entire neighborhood, raze all the houses, put up hu

by tabeth 9y ago

I don't see how this problem can be solved in the short-run with anything other than money. Just buy out the entire neighborhood, raze all the houses, put up huge complexes and bake in the price of the beforementioned behavior into the new rent. Doing this a house at a time is a fruitless effort. The neighbors will crush you -- rightfully so (why shouldn't the people who own propery have a say?). It sucks, but it seems like that's how it is. EDIT: The only interesting thing here is that people are so fixated on just a few spots in this country. You'd think the natural conclusion of this would be employers going to the cheaper areas and this problem would solve itself.

ohazi 9y ago
> It sucks, but it seems like that's how it is. But maybe not how it should be? You own your plot of land... I don't see how it's reasonable for you to claim any control over how other owners use their plot(s) of land, within reason. If a building proposal fits within the current zoning, the default should be approval. I don't think it's reasonable for neighbors to be able to kill a project over shadows on their vegetables.
- tabeth 9y ago
  The problem with this is that zoning is inherently political. Even if it fits into the "current zoning" the neighbors will just change it.
  - ohazi 9y ago
    So let them! I want to see them put vegetable garden shadows into the zoning code. This is the only way to reasonably fight this - put it all out in the open and let voters decide what is and isn't reasonable. There are enough reasonable people who will think it's ridiculous and vote to change it. It shouldn't be tied up in individual lawsuits with individual developers. Nobody has enough money to fight like that, and this is why nothing gets built.
    - tabeth 9y ago
      No disagreement here. I think if there was more political activism density would be inevitable, as the average person can't afford a house where housing is an issue.
  - TomV1971 9y ago
    That’s exactly what we did in our neighborhood: change the zoning to disallow structures with more than one story.
    - mercutio2 9y ago
      I wouldn’t want to live there, but this is the way to achieve limitations on density.
    - njarboe 9y ago
      You changed the rules after you got yours. Good for you.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    In my experience zoning isn't merely political, it's essentially corrupt. The people who make the decisions don't have to hire lawyers to defend those decisions in court, so they don't care to make legally defensible decisions. Instead their decisions are calculated to benefit their friends and benefactors.
- ggg9990 9y ago
  It's your "within reason" where all the debate lies.
  - davidw 9y ago
    The problem is that we went from "it'd be nice if people didn't open up a slaughterhouse next to the school or next to our houses" to "OMG A DUPLEX ITS RUINING THE NEIGHBORHOOD OMG OMG!!!!"
    - TomV1971 9y ago
      And then you spend $1M+ on a nice house in a nice quiet neighborhood, and suddenly you start to care. It happened to me, and just like it happens to virtually everybody in the same situation.
      - ggg9990 9y ago
        Yeah, but your needs aren't the only needs. Would you want to restrict voting in your jurisdiction to only homeowners?
        junkscience2017 9y ago
        If you look at who actively votes in local elections, this is already the case.
      - njarboe 9y ago
        This is what zoning should be for. When you buy a house for a million dollars you need to spend half day or so to look at the zoning of the area and then you have an idea of what is allowed to be built. If you have and empty lot next to you and it is zoned for up to a 6 story apartment building, then when someone wants to build a 6 story apartment building on that lot, they should be able to. If someone is getting a zoning change, that is very different. In the Bay Area somehow we have moved to where people somehow have power to stop building even when the building meets the current zoning laws. This really needs to change. There is some movement at the state level to help with this problem and I hope they pass legislation that, if your building plan is withing zoning laws, you get to build it.

by tabeth 9y ago

ohazi 9y ago

> It sucks, but it seems like that's how it is. But maybe not how it should be? You own your plot of land... I don't see how it's reasonable for you to claim any control over how other owners use their plot(s) of land, within reason. If a building proposal fits within the current zoning, the default should be approval. I don't think it's reasonable for neighbors to be able to kill a project over shadows on their vegetables.

tabeth 9y ago
The problem with this is that zoning is inherently political. Even if it fits into the "current zoning" the neighbors will just change it.
- ohazi 9y ago
  So let them! I want to see them put vegetable garden shadows into the zoning code. This is the only way to reasonably fight this - put it all out in the open and let voters decide what is and isn't reasonable. There are enough reasonable people who will think it's ridiculous and vote to change it. It shouldn't be tied up in individual lawsuits with individual developers. Nobody has enough money to fight like that, and this is why nothing gets built.
  - tabeth 9y ago
    No disagreement here. I think if there was more political activism density would be inevitable, as the average person can't afford a house where housing is an issue.
- TomV1971 9y ago
  That’s exactly what we did in our neighborhood: change the zoning to disallow structures with more than one story.
  - mercutio2 9y ago
    I wouldn’t want to live there, but this is the way to achieve limitations on density.
  - njarboe 9y ago
    You changed the rules after you got yours. Good for you.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  In my experience zoning isn't merely political, it's essentially corrupt. The people who make the decisions don't have to hire lawyers to defend those decisions in court, so they don't care to make legally defensible decisions. Instead their decisions are calculated to benefit their friends and benefactors.
ggg9990 9y ago
It's your "within reason" where all the debate lies.
- davidw 9y ago
  The problem is that we went from "it'd be nice if people didn't open up a slaughterhouse next to the school or next to our houses" to "OMG A DUPLEX ITS RUINING THE NEIGHBORHOOD OMG OMG!!!!"
  - TomV1971 9y ago
    And then you spend $1M+ on a nice house in a nice quiet neighborhood, and suddenly you start to care. It happened to me, and just like it happens to virtually everybody in the same situation.
    - ggg9990 9y ago
      Yeah, but your needs aren't the only needs. Would you want to restrict voting in your jurisdiction to only homeowners?
      - junkscience2017 9y ago
        If you look at who actively votes in local elections, this is already the case.
    - njarboe 9y ago
      This is what zoning should be for. When you buy a house for a million dollars you need to spend half day or so to look at the zoning of the area and then you have an idea of what is allowed to be built. If you have and empty lot next to you and it is zoned for up to a 6 story apartment building, then when someone wants to build a 6 story apartment building on that lot, they should be able to. If someone is getting a zoning change, that is very different. In the Bay Area somehow we have moved to where people somehow have power to stop building even when the building meets the current zoning laws. This really needs to change. There is some movement at the state level to help with this problem and I hope they pass legislation that, if your building plan is withing zoning laws, you get to build it.