4 ms·
If I were foolish enough to buy property next to a lot zoned for a 50-storey apartment building, then, yes.
by burke 8y ago
If I were foolish enough to buy property next to a lot zoned for a 50-storey apartment building, then, yes.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoPeople want to use upzoning to change permissable uses after people have bought. That’s the problem. So you’re either arguing for zoning to remain static to maintain the property rights of surrounding owners, or someone’s getting screwed when zoning changes. The equitable solution would be to compensate surrounding owners for their property losing value or them losing enjoyment when zoning changes (similar to eminent domain), but if that makes zoning changes prohibitively expensive (or owners turn down the offer entirely), we’re back to square one. Someone is losing something. I would rather try to cure cancer than fix land use and housing in California.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- upzone 8y ago> The equitable solution would be to compensate surrounding owners for their property losing value or them losing enjoyment when zoning changes... So we should use public money to compensate private property owners for making a bad gamble, at the expense of people who need a place to live. I’m sorry, but why is owning property a guarantee of a return on your investment? Should we compensate people who hold stock in coal companies when we regulate the coal industry too?
- toomuchtodo 8y agoIt’s not a gamble, it’s ownership. It’s not a guaranteed return, it’s compensation for loss of value by an injuring party. Them the breaks of real estate law and it’s English origins, and while I won’t dissuade you from action, know that it will take decades before you see meaningful change. Plan accordingly.
- 0xB31B1B 8y agoYou lost me when you acted like property owners in California are poor and need protection. They have seen some of the greatest unearned wealth increases by sitting on their butts doing nothing in the past generations. Meanwhile, the low income renters are the ones actually needing “equity” in this situation
- toomuchtodo 8y agoAll property owners are afforded protection under the law, regardless of income and wealth status. Low income renters, by the very definition, have no equity in the situation. Someone would need to subsidize the equity you want them to have (no complaints with that, just find the voluntary party willing to pay for it).
- Alex3917 8y ago> The equitable solution would be to compensate surrounding owners for their property losing value They already get compensated in the form of lower taxes. Just like how if the neighbors build something that increases their property value, they need to pay more in taxes.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoYou’re free to make that argument to property owners and see if it sticks. If I was a gambling man, I doubt you’d get any traction. And if you attempt to use legislation, you’re going to get shot right down, because property owners have more to lose than transient renters. Big fan of FWD:Everyone by the way, great product.
- Alex3917 8y agoFair enough. And thanks! I've been writing regex ten hours a day for the last six weeks to fix thread parsing issues in weird corner cases, we'll have some improvements to the site that will be more visible in the next couple months though.