4 ms·
The sole purpose of those boards existing is to inflict those very wounds, which are not "self-inflicted" because the people who compose those boards are homeow
by zkms 9y ago
The sole purpose of those boards existing is to inflict those very wounds, which are not "self-inflicted" because the people who compose those boards are homeowners and the people hurt by the wounds tend not to be.
Homeowners benefit from the ability to obstruct/delay/deny others from building more housing, because it makes them a frighteningly huge amount of money by making their property worth more.
Morally yes, these people ought to be told to go pound sand; the very fact that there's legal authority to prevent dense/tall housing from being built is abhorrent, but it's the function of those boards (and everything else is secondary) -- to "increase property value" by artificially restricting what other people can do with their own property.
- st26 9y agoIs it abhorrent that the owners in a neighborhood can choose to come together as a collective and influence the neighborhood they all live in? If yes, is it also abhorrent when a group of workers at a company band together to influence the working conditions they all work under?
- epistasis 9y agoThis is shifting the question from an interesting one to an uninteresting one. Collective influence is not abhorrent, but the direction that they influence things certainly can be. When segregated neighborhoods collectively influenced which races could buy houses, was that abhorrent? I think we would all agree. When neighborhoods for neighborhoods watch groups, or clean up a playground, or build community by throwing block parties, they are doing great, not abhorrent things. Conspiring to keep others out is usually abhorrent though.
- rofrol 9y agoIt was a good question. Workers want good working conditions, home owners good living conditions.
- zkms 9y ago> Is it abhorrent that the owners in a neighborhood can choose to come together as a collective and influence the neighborhood they all live in? Nothing wrong with it! If some people in a neighbourhood want to buy up a parcel of land to prevent housing from being built there, there's nothing wrong with that. The issue sorta crops up when you start dictating what (structurally-sound) buildings others get to build on their own land. If you want to reject private property altogether and go to some centrally-planned economic system then you've got a lot of work to do because even the fucking USSR was better at building housing than US cities are today.
- Fins 9y agoTechnically, USSR still was worse; Even in the 80's people lived in barracks. In Moscow people were living in communal flats. US is still slightly better than that.