3 ms·

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

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....
- mikeg8 7y ago
  > They not investments; they're depreciating assets. How is a house a depreciating asset when home values continually rise over the long term, especially in CA? You may want them to be a depreciating asset but they are not. Real-estate ownership has arguably been one of the most secure forms investment.

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....
mikeg8 7y ago
> They not investments; they're depreciating assets. How is a house a depreciating asset when home values continually rise over the long term, especially in CA? You may want them to be a depreciating asset but they are not. Real-estate ownership has arguably been one of the most secure forms investment.