3 ms·

If we argue against this, we're apparently terrible NIMBYs, opponents of affordable housing and stooges of the wealthy landed elite. Yes, exactly. You are putt

by harryh 9y ago

If we argue against this, we're apparently terrible NIMBYs, opponents of affordable housing and stooges of the wealthy landed elite. Yes, exactly. You are putting your aesthetic preferences above the property rights of landowners to do what they want with their own property as well as the ability of other people to find affordable housing. You're also (in most cases) using the power of the state to push up the value of your home and put money in your pocket. This isn't really up for debate. That is literally what you are doing (in this theoretical scenario). Now, maybe doing that is good. Maybe that is ok. Maybe those values are fine. But you have to confront the reality here. Why are the aesthetic preferences of suburban dwellers invalid and the aesthetic preferences of city dwellers valid? The aesthetic preferences of no one are valid. If someone wants to buy a plot of land in the middle of NYC and build a single family home on it they are free to do so as long as they have the cash.

ryandrake 9y ago
Property rights have limits. You can't open a stinky pig farm or a loud car repair shop on your property. One of the purposes of local government is for local people to band together to set the ground rules for what's allowed in their local community. Within limits of course--people shouldn't be able to exclude based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. There are lots of communities. If you don't like the rules of one of them, try one of the many others. How is it that residents agreeing they don't want something around is a bad use of the "power of the state," yet coming in and forcing the locals to accept something they don't want around is an acceptable use of the power of the state?
- harryh 9y ago
  The government isn't forcing locals to accept anything. If no local landowners want to build denser housing no one is forcing them to do it. You've mischaracterized what is going on here. The default mode of government should be to get out of the way unless there is a super compelling interest to do otherwise. I don't believe that the desire of people to live in unchanging suburbs is all that compelling. We living in a country with a growing and urbanizing population. These changes might make some people sad. Tough.
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    It looks like we will have to respectfully disagree, but thanks for keeping it civil.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  > Within limits of course--people shouldn't be able to exclude based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. California statistics indicates that artificially constraining housing supply has created housing costs that in effect limits access to the rare opportunities found here to blacks and latinos as well as the poor. It makes it almost impossible to grow up with lower middle class parents or work in a low-pay low-skilled position, and mingling with the tech crowd to work your way up. * A snapshot of more recent U.S. Census migration numbers shows that nearly three-quarters of those who have left California for other states since 2007 earn less than $50k a year. * San Francisco's African American population has declined from 13.4% of the population in 1970 to 6.1% * 41 percent of San Franciscans spend 30 to 50 percent on rent, despite a lot of rent control for longer-tenure residents and a population average income being $104k as well as median $77k * low skilled entry level jobs are moved elsewhere https://www.google.com.tw/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/03/those-.. https://www.google.com.tw/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/03/those-.... I understand that this might not be the intended consequence for all people fighting for the current zoning rules, but due to its effects on blacks and latinos as well as the poor I find the effects immoral. Anyone supporting these policies knowing this has the right to do so, but not while at the same time claiming they fight for diversity and the dispossessed.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  We aren't talking about a stinky pig farm or a loud car repair shop. We are talking about a building that is slightly taller than the ones already there. How is stopping someone from making their own house one story taller an acceptable use of the power of the state?

by harryh 9y ago

ryandrake 9y ago

Property rights have limits. You can't open a stinky pig farm or a loud car repair shop on your property. One of the purposes of local government is for local people to band together to set the ground rules for what's allowed in their local community. Within limits of course--people shouldn't be able to exclude based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. There are lots of communities. If you don't like the rules of one of them, try one of the many others. How is it that residents agreeing they don't want something around is a bad use of the "power of the state," yet coming in and forcing the locals to accept something they don't want around is an acceptable use of the power of the state?

harryh 9y ago
The government isn't forcing locals to accept anything. If no local landowners want to build denser housing no one is forcing them to do it. You've mischaracterized what is going on here. The default mode of government should be to get out of the way unless there is a super compelling interest to do otherwise. I don't believe that the desire of people to live in unchanging suburbs is all that compelling. We living in a country with a growing and urbanizing population. These changes might make some people sad. Tough.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  It looks like we will have to respectfully disagree, but thanks for keeping it civil.
asabjorn 9y ago
> Within limits of course--people shouldn't be able to exclude based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. California statistics indicates that artificially constraining housing supply has created housing costs that in effect limits access to the rare opportunities found here to blacks and latinos as well as the poor. It makes it almost impossible to grow up with lower middle class parents or work in a low-pay low-skilled position, and mingling with the tech crowd to work your way up. * A snapshot of more recent U.S. Census migration numbers shows that nearly three-quarters of those who have left California for other states since 2007 earn less than $50k a year. * San Francisco's African American population has declined from 13.4% of the population in 1970 to 6.1% * 41 percent of San Franciscans spend 30 to 50 percent on rent, despite a lot of rent control for longer-tenure residents and a population average income being $104k as well as median $77k * low skilled entry level jobs are moved elsewhere https://www.google.com.tw/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/03/those-.. https://www.google.com.tw/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/03/those-.... I understand that this might not be the intended consequence for all people fighting for the current zoning rules, but due to its effects on blacks and latinos as well as the poor I find the effects immoral. Anyone supporting these policies knowing this has the right to do so, but not while at the same time claiming they fight for diversity and the dispossessed.
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
We aren't talking about a stinky pig farm or a loud car repair shop. We are talking about a building that is slightly taller than the ones already there. How is stopping someone from making their own house one story taller an acceptable use of the power of the state?