4 ms·
> The equitable solution would be to compensate surrounding owners for their property losing value or them losing enjoyment when zoning changes... So we should
by 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).