4 ms·

GP "helped build" a neighborhood presumably by buying when it was less desirable, and investing time and money and effort in to making the neighborhood better.

GP "helped build" a neighborhood presumably by buying when it was less desirable, and investing time and money and effort in to making the neighborhood better. Yes, building a bunch of new units will change a neighborhood. Yes, changing zoning will alter a neighborhood. What, precisely, gives everyone who wishes to live in an area the "right" to live there affordably, as defined by whatever arbitrary definition? I am all for relaxing zoning and building new houses because the rent is too damn high, but I also see this attitude in NYC and it is insane. No one has a right to move to NYC, and most particularly my block. If you don't like the prices, no one is forcing you to move in to my neighborhood. Actually, I'm beyond saturated with people moving in to the neighborhood I invested 20 years in to, and subsequently telling me and my neighbors who did similarly how to live, how to behave, and driving every existing business away and replacing it with the same exact thing but priced at triple. And yes, I know gentrification and new developments are orthogonal and in many cases allowing more construction would lower rents and transitively lower prices which is why I am generally in favor of relaxing zoning. But this general sense of entitlement, SHEESH! You don't have a right to move on to my block, at whatever price you feel like paying.

rayiner 9y ago
GP got his reward for that investment in the form of increased value of his own property. That’s all he’s entitled to. > No one has a right to move to NYC, and most particularly my block. People have a right to use their property as they see fit. If that means tearing down a brownstone in your neighborhood and building a high rise so a bunch of people from the Midwest can move in, so be it. The government can limit those rights when necessary, but the affirmative burden is on the party demanding such regulation to show why it is necessary to interfere with peoples’ property rights.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- CapitalistCartr 9y ago
  "GP got his reward for that investment in the form of increased value of his own property. That’s all he’s entitled to." Says you. I don't see that. Although I live in a working-class area in a lesser city, I've worked to make my community better, and my interests don't stop at money. "People have a right to use their property as they see fit. If that means tearing down a brownstone in your neighborhood and building a high rise so a bunch of people from the Midwest can move in, so be it. The government can limit those rights when necessary, but the affirmative burden is on the party demanding such regulation to show why it is necessary to interfere with peoples’ property rights." But you are the one arguing for gov't intervention. The locals want things to stay the same. Its local landowners who don't want change. I don't understand this part of your argument.
  - harryh 9y ago
    Some of the local landowners do want to change. They want to tear down some buildings and build new taller ones. Local zoning laws are what prevents them from doing so.
    - CapitalistCartr 9y ago
      But those laws are the current state of affairs. They were when the properties were purchased; they are now. Gov't intervention is required for change.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        Getting rid of government intervention (zoning laws, etc.) is not government intervention.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > Says you. I don't see that. No, the law says that. The law lets you capture the increased value of your property. That’s the nature of a property right. Property rights don’t give you the right to dictate how other people use their property. Even zoning laws were intended to protect neighborhood health and safety, not the locals’ interests in preventing change. > But you are the one arguing for gov't intervention. The locals want things to stay the same. Its local landowners who don't want change. I don't understand this part of your argument. Owning property gives you complete dominion over that property, by default. If I own a brownstone, and want to tear it down and build a high rise, I can do that. That’s the nature of property rights. What prevents me from doing that is zoning boards, historical conservency laws, etc. Thats government intervention.
namlem 9y ago
Oh please. Everyone should have the right to purchase housing at fair market value. People like you twist the power of local government to subvert the market for your own benefit. The price is high because of NIMBYism, not because of the market.
mancerayder 9y ago
Fellow NYC home owner here. Recent one, though. What are ways in which people are telling you to live? I'm looking forward to the 3X price jumps of businesses in my neighborhood - it might improve the quality of the food and options. I say that entirely with a straight face - since almost all the food options are 'affordable', the food options are greasy, unhealthy and also lacking in diversity. My take is, everyone has a right to try to 'make it.' People don't need to take note of how the community was 5, 10, or 50 years ago as the city is continually changing. Almost nowhere in NYC is a neighborhood static in terms of pricepoints, culture or just about anything else. I think it's reasonable for people who have lived decades someplace to want this preserved, and it's equally reasonable for new people to come in with new ideas. It's a zero-sum game and so the law has to view these things without biasing any group as much as possible.

rayiner 9y ago

GP got his reward for that investment in the form of increased value of his own property. That’s all he’s entitled to. > No one has a right to move to NYC, and most particularly my block. People have a right to use their property as they see fit. If that means tearing down a brownstone in your neighborhood and building a high rise so a bunch of people from the Midwest can move in, so be it. The government can limit those rights when necessary, but the affirmative burden is on the party demanding such regulation to show why it is necessary to interfere with peoples’ property rights.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
CapitalistCartr 9y ago
"GP got his reward for that investment in the form of increased value of his own property. That’s all he’s entitled to." Says you. I don't see that. Although I live in a working-class area in a lesser city, I've worked to make my community better, and my interests don't stop at money. "People have a right to use their property as they see fit. If that means tearing down a brownstone in your neighborhood and building a high rise so a bunch of people from the Midwest can move in, so be it. The government can limit those rights when necessary, but the affirmative burden is on the party demanding such regulation to show why it is necessary to interfere with peoples’ property rights." But you are the one arguing for gov't intervention. The locals want things to stay the same. Its local landowners who don't want change. I don't understand this part of your argument.
- harryh 9y ago
  Some of the local landowners do want to change. They want to tear down some buildings and build new taller ones. Local zoning laws are what prevents them from doing so.
  - CapitalistCartr 9y ago
    But those laws are the current state of affairs. They were when the properties were purchased; they are now. Gov't intervention is required for change.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Getting rid of government intervention (zoning laws, etc.) is not government intervention.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > Says you. I don't see that. No, the law says that. The law lets you capture the increased value of your property. That’s the nature of a property right. Property rights don’t give you the right to dictate how other people use their property. Even zoning laws were intended to protect neighborhood health and safety, not the locals’ interests in preventing change. > But you are the one arguing for gov't intervention. The locals want things to stay the same. Its local landowners who don't want change. I don't understand this part of your argument. Owning property gives you complete dominion over that property, by default. If I own a brownstone, and want to tear it down and build a high rise, I can do that. That’s the nature of property rights. What prevents me from doing that is zoning boards, historical conservency laws, etc. Thats government intervention.

namlem 9y ago

Oh please. Everyone should have the right to purchase housing at fair market value. People like you twist the power of local government to subvert the market for your own benefit. The price is high because of NIMBYism, not because of the market.

mancerayder 9y ago

Fellow NYC home owner here. Recent one, though. What are ways in which people are telling you to live? I'm looking forward to the 3X price jumps of businesses in my neighborhood - it might improve the quality of the food and options. I say that entirely with a straight face - since almost all the food options are 'affordable', the food options are greasy, unhealthy and also lacking in diversity. My take is, everyone has a right to try to 'make it.' People don't need to take note of how the community was 5, 10, or 50 years ago as the city is continually changing. Almost nowhere in NYC is a neighborhood static in terms of pricepoints, culture or just about anything else. I think it's reasonable for people who have lived decades someplace to want this preserved, and it's equally reasonable for new people to come in with new ideas. It's a zero-sum game and so the law has to view these things without biasing any group as much as possible.