4 ms·

> Once it is a duplex it is a duplex. You cannot make those assurances for the next homeowner, or the one after that. I don't think that is true, or at least i

> Once it is a duplex it is a duplex. You cannot make those assurances for the next homeowner, or the one after that. I don't think that is true, or at least it doesn't have to be true. First, imagine a world where instead of "you need four parking spots if you want a duplex," the law was more flexible and said something like "the # of cars registered to an address cannot be greater than the # of parking spots at that address." That would solve the problem but also allow the duplex owner to rent to at least some subset of tenants instead of not being able to rent at all. Second, my understanding is older houses are grandfathered in, so if I owned a duplex built 50 years ago that wouldn't pass duplex code today, I would still be able to use it as a duplex without bringing it up to code. That means there are already duplexes with two parking spots that are legal, but I just can't have one if I build it today with more modern, safer building methods. (IANA real estate laywer, but this grandfathering is my understanding of how zoning law works.) > So a property not designed to hold a large number of people, isn't allowed to hold a large number of people. That seems reasonable. Just from a fire-safety perspective alone it makes a lot of sense to require custom-built commercial facilities after a certain number of kids. I understand the need for some requirements, like fire safety. That's very important and there are separate rules for that. But California requires something like 35 indoor sq feet per child in a home day care facility. That means you can have 14 kids in a 1,000 square foot home, but can't have 15 kids in a 3,000 square foot home. These laws are very blunt instruments.

Someone1234 7y ago
> the law was more flexible and said something like "the # of cars registered to an address cannot be greater than the # of parking spots at that address." Your original complaint was that your property rights were infringed. Now you're arguing that they should be able to infringe one kind of property right (vehicle ownership) in order to satisfy another (property ownership). Plus that restriction would be trivial to work around. Just register the vehicle with a friend/parent/PO Box/a registered business/etc. > That means there are already duplexes with two parking spots that are legal, but I just can't have one if I build it today with more modern, safer building methods. So your argument for improving your property rights is to take property rights away from other properties that got grandfathered in, potentially evicting people in those duplexes? Isn't that the type of infringement you were arguing against? > I understand the need for some requirements, like fire safety. That's very important and there are separate rules for that. There are. But these rules are also for that. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
- lpolovets 7y ago
  I'm not saying any of the things you're attributing to me. 1) What vehicle ownership infringement are you talking about? All I said that if I have two parking spots and own one car, I should be allowed to rent out half of the duplex to someone who also has just one car, and without having to build two additional parking spots in order to specify an arbitrary law. I would understand not being allowed to rent to someone with 3 cars if I only have one free parking spot, as that would infringe to some extent on my neighbors. 2) I absolutely don't want to take property rights from people whose properties are grandfathered in. I want more property rights for everyone, not fewer. And I don't know why you thought I was suggesting evictions. I'm suggesting that unless there is a safety issue, then new properties should have similar rights as well.
  - OnlineCourage 7y ago
    1) Let's let the number of street parking spots in a city be equal to 10. Currently your new duplex would keep that number 10, assuming 2 cars per household. Under your plan, that would reduce the number of street parking spots to 8, assuming the same number of cars per household. Of course now that the law has been changed, more people want to build duplexes, to take advantage of thier property. 4 more duplexes are built in the city. Now you have zero street parking spaces remaining. So where do new vehicle owners park? They have to pay. So your new rule has transferred what was previously a public expense to a private expense. Basically upping expenses on vehicles for others is ownership infringement. It would be similar if someone built a factory next to your house which used up 99% of the water in the city and then said..."how am I infringing on water usage? I paid for it." Well, yes but no one else can use water now, or you have upped the cost of water for the neighborhood. 2) People often use cars to generate income through being able to drive to work.
throwawaycert 7y ago
The mere existence of a house on the other side of even a fairly big town can affect the fire safety of your house, because it affects the likelihood that emergency responders in the area will be overloaded by an excessive number of fires or medical calls. Everything is interconnected.

Someone1234 7y ago

> the law was more flexible and said something like "the # of cars registered to an address cannot be greater than the # of parking spots at that address." Your original complaint was that your property rights were infringed. Now you're arguing that they should be able to infringe one kind of property right (vehicle ownership) in order to satisfy another (property ownership). Plus that restriction would be trivial to work around. Just register the vehicle with a friend/parent/PO Box/a registered business/etc. > That means there are already duplexes with two parking spots that are legal, but I just can't have one if I build it today with more modern, safer building methods. So your argument for improving your property rights is to take property rights away from other properties that got grandfathered in, potentially evicting people in those duplexes? Isn't that the type of infringement you were arguing against? > I understand the need for some requirements, like fire safety. That's very important and there are separate rules for that. There are. But these rules are also for that. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

lpolovets 7y ago
I'm not saying any of the things you're attributing to me. 1) What vehicle ownership infringement are you talking about? All I said that if I have two parking spots and own one car, I should be allowed to rent out half of the duplex to someone who also has just one car, and without having to build two additional parking spots in order to specify an arbitrary law. I would understand not being allowed to rent to someone with 3 cars if I only have one free parking spot, as that would infringe to some extent on my neighbors. 2) I absolutely don't want to take property rights from people whose properties are grandfathered in. I want more property rights for everyone, not fewer. And I don't know why you thought I was suggesting evictions. I'm suggesting that unless there is a safety issue, then new properties should have similar rights as well.
- OnlineCourage 7y ago
  1) Let's let the number of street parking spots in a city be equal to 10. Currently your new duplex would keep that number 10, assuming 2 cars per household. Under your plan, that would reduce the number of street parking spots to 8, assuming the same number of cars per household. Of course now that the law has been changed, more people want to build duplexes, to take advantage of thier property. 4 more duplexes are built in the city. Now you have zero street parking spaces remaining. So where do new vehicle owners park? They have to pay. So your new rule has transferred what was previously a public expense to a private expense. Basically upping expenses on vehicles for others is ownership infringement. It would be similar if someone built a factory next to your house which used up 99% of the water in the city and then said..."how am I infringing on water usage? I paid for it." Well, yes but no one else can use water now, or you have upped the cost of water for the neighborhood. 2) People often use cars to generate income through being able to drive to work.

throwawaycert 7y ago

The mere existence of a house on the other side of even a fairly big town can affect the fire safety of your house, because it affects the likelihood that emergency responders in the area will be overloaded by an excessive number of fires or medical calls. Everything is interconnected.