2 ms·

Are there policies anywhere that compensate people for the externalities brought by change? Like, if Alice buys a sunny place with a great view of wide open sky

Are there policies anywhere that compensate people for the externalities brought by change? Like, if Alice buys a sunny place with a great view of wide open sky and a park, then Bob buys the places around her, bulldozes the park, and builds 20 story buildings, Alice is now in the dark looking at concrete 10 feet away. It objectively makes Alice's situation worse. Are there any frameworks that compensate Alice for the worsening of her situation? I could imagine something like making developers pay for blocking views/sky/sun, or for creating noise, or making them pay for the change their development causes in the market value of others' properties. Not exactly that, but something along those lines. I'd bet it could bring some NIMBYs around. They'd no longer lose out when beneficial change happens.

CydeWeys 7y ago
You don't own the view. It's unrealistic to expect that owning a single parcel of land would grant you broad latitude to stop projects anywhere within sight. If you want a guaranteed good view, go buy a big plot of land way out in the middle of nowhere. You have no right to it in a city; other people's right to have housing is way more important.
- bwb 7y ago
  I had this same question and I was told by people in the industry surrounding people can sue, and have a case. I was asking them why they can't just rezone my neighborhood to 4 story mixed-use, and I was told they would sue over the changes to the view because their lots although more valuable would be blocked from sunlight unless they built up... Not verified but what I was told by arch.
- skybrian 7y ago
  Seems like that's ignoring zoning which is how views get protected in practice? Owning a view isn't necessary.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  Yes, of course in this situation Alice doesn't own the view. But she is made worse off by Bob's developments. I really hope we can agree that Alice's situation is being made worse in a real way here. Further, pre-Bob, the city is mostly full of Alices, so if you want them to not vote against Bob's development, like in OP's article, you might want to align Alice's and Bob's incentives. It's pragmatic. It also happens to have the nice property of not making Alice worse off when we improve things for everyone else, which morally feels nice. Either way, the question isn't about the ethics or pragmatics. It's whether this has been tried anywhere.
  - Atheros 7y ago
    What about in the opposite direction? What if I build something that makes the neighborhood nicer (like buying a burned out building and replacing it with one that is beautiful and matches its neighbors). It seems like the neighbors should pay me their increased home value, right? If Nancy plants flowers, you have to pay her. It's only fair. It's also ludicrous. Your idea is unimplementable. It would be simpler if everyone just stopped viewing their home as an investment. The meme that 'homes are investments' is a very recent invention. They not investments; they're depreciating assets.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
      My perspective is that it's not about the investment. It's about wanting to keep the quality of life you bought into. The investment side only comes in when the large building next to you decreases your quality of life, so you want to sell, which you otherwise wouldn't have wanted to do. I'd totally buy into a system that incentivizes the positives too. If I'm paying for the amount it affects me by, sure. That's why I pay my taxes. On the other hand, ratchet-like systems by which things can't get worse than they started seem fair too. It's okay to be asymmetric. Specifically, the example that comes to mind as a fair reason to be pissed (or vote against development/rezoning) is changing something like this: https://ssl.cdn-redfin.com/photo/9/bigphoto/398/486398_44_2.jpg https://ssl.cdn-redfin.com/photo/9/bigphoto/398/486398_44_2.... to something like this: https://ssl.cdn-redfin.com/photo/9/bigphoto/440/486440_28_0.jpg https://ssl.cdn-redfin.com/photo/9/bigphoto/440/486440_28_0....
sershe 7y ago
Via the property value increasing to account for being able to build a 20-story tower on her lot.

CydeWeys 7y ago

You don't own the view. It's unrealistic to expect that owning a single parcel of land would grant you broad latitude to stop projects anywhere within sight. If you want a guaranteed good view, go buy a big plot of land way out in the middle of nowhere. You have no right to it in a city; other people's right to have housing is way more important.

bwb 7y ago
I had this same question and I was told by people in the industry surrounding people can sue, and have a case. I was asking them why they can't just rezone my neighborhood to 4 story mixed-use, and I was told they would sue over the changes to the view because their lots although more valuable would be blocked from sunlight unless they built up... Not verified but what I was told by arch.
skybrian 7y ago
Seems like that's ignoring zoning which is how views get protected in practice? Owning a view isn't necessary.
6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
Yes, of course in this situation Alice doesn't own the view. But she is made worse off by Bob's developments. I really hope we can agree that Alice's situation is being made worse in a real way here. Further, pre-Bob, the city is mostly full of Alices, so if you want them to not vote against Bob's development, like in OP's article, you might want to align Alice's and Bob's incentives. It's pragmatic. It also happens to have the nice property of not making Alice worse off when we improve things for everyone else, which morally feels nice. Either way, the question isn't about the ethics or pragmatics. It's whether this has been tried anywhere.
- Atheros 7y ago
  What about in the opposite direction? What if I build something that makes the neighborhood nicer (like buying a burned out building and replacing it with one that is beautiful and matches its neighbors). It seems like the neighbors should pay me their increased home value, right? If Nancy plants flowers, you have to pay her. It's only fair. It's also ludicrous. Your idea is unimplementable. It would be simpler if everyone just stopped viewing their home as an investment. The meme that 'homes are investments' is a very recent invention. They not investments; they're depreciating assets.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
    My perspective is that it's not about the investment. It's about wanting to keep the quality of life you bought into. The investment side only comes in when the large building next to you decreases your quality of life, so you want to sell, which you otherwise wouldn't have wanted to do. I'd totally buy into a system that incentivizes the positives too. If I'm paying for the amount it affects me by, sure. That's why I pay my taxes. On the other hand, ratchet-like systems by which things can't get worse than they started seem fair too. It's okay to be asymmetric. Specifically, the example that comes to mind as a fair reason to be pissed (or vote against development/rezoning) is changing something like this: https://ssl.cdn-redfin.com/photo/9/bigphoto/398/486398_44_2.jpg https://ssl.cdn-redfin.com/photo/9/bigphoto/398/486398_44_2.... to something like this: https://ssl.cdn-redfin.com/photo/9/bigphoto/440/486440_28_0.jpg https://ssl.cdn-redfin.com/photo/9/bigphoto/440/486440_28_0....

sershe 7y ago

Via the property value increasing to account for being able to build a 20-story tower on her lot.