5 ms·

I don't know if this holds water. Boomers who "bought in" during the 70s-80s (when prices were a much lower multiple of the median income) didn't have to make a

I don't know if this holds water. Boomers who "bought in" during the 70s-80s (when prices were a much lower multiple of the median income) didn't have to make a public discussion of housing, because it was readily available to them. Had in not been affordable to those boomers, would have the silent generation said the boomers didn't deserve housing? As a public policy, it seems prudent to have home prices target some median of the income. If people can afford to buy homes, they are incentivized to stay in the area longer and establish strong community ties. That's why the U.S. Government heavily promoted home ownership post WW2.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago
They own because they existed. They were born before most of us did..To say that someone doesn’t deserve their wealth they earned in the past because they didn’t have to deal with today’s problems doesn’t hold water. Wealth is a construct built upon the notion of scarcity. One has wealth BECAUSE another doesn’t have it. If everyone had one million dollars, then a million has no value. Imagine I inherited a diamond necklace from my grandmother who inherited it from her mother and so on. The original price of it was $200 and today it is worth a million dollars. Yes, I inherited it. It’s mine. It’s valuable. Because someone else covets such a diamond necklace doesn’t mean that it is unfair that I inherited it. Most of the YIMBY arguments seems to be based on ‘unfairness’. How is it unfair to hold something of value that others covet? To be punitively taxed on an asset that one owns free and clear just because someone younger doesn’t own it is a gross violation of property rights. It’s also ignorant and misleading. Most of all, it’s immoral and petty.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  In the case of the city/situation discussed in the article -- Lafayette, CA -- would you believe it is unfair to step on the property rights of the landowner who wants to put 300 condos or 44 single family homes on the vacant land? It doesn't matter how the current owner of that land acquired it: for any of us to stop them, would be a gross violation of their property rights. Nobody is saying, just because the land you currently own is upzoned, that you have to tear down your single family home and put in multifamily housing. To suggest such would be misunderstanding the position held by YIMBYs.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    I disagree. There is such a thing as law of the commons and welfare of the commons. Air quality, watershed and conservation of habitat are all part of the commons and its welfare. The erasure is CEQA is a step towards zoning changes and in the destruction of the commons.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
      So if it's fair for you to say "my neighbor should not develop his land" --by virtue of living near your neighbor-- am I not equally valid in saying "my neighbor should be able to develop his land?"
      - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        Yes. Exactly. When we all bought in, it was with the promise of a certain percentage for residential zoning and commercial zoning and resource allocation. Any decision should be subject to a referendum of said owners. It doesn’t make sense for non property tax payers to vote on how tax payers and property owners should be taxed. That’s a form of tyranny. Property rights are important to this country and is foundational to why it was formed. Erasing CEQA and changing zoning without consent is against the rights of property owners. Vote on it. Majority decision wins. As long as the referendum is open only to vested interests. Anyone else imposing coercive and punitive taxes and zoning changes is dissolution of property rights. Why should anyone who has no rights to an asset have a say in how it should be treated?
        JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
        I think you should have to physically own all the surrounding land if you directly don't want it to develop. You weren't promised anything, beyond the agency of your own plot: that's what ownership means, right? The choice do decide its destiny. If you wanted that choice for a full square mile around you, should've bought the land to ensure it never, ever was developed. > Why should anyone who has no rights to an asset have a say in how it should be treated? That's my point: you have no rights to your neighbors land. You property rights begin and end at the physical demarcation of your parcel. You never paid for the promise of immutable zoning laws (I would be shocked if your deed made such claims). I may not agree with your position, but I do definitely understand the thought processes regarding it, which I did not before, and for that I am appreciative.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago

They own because they existed. They were born before most of us did..To say that someone doesn’t deserve their wealth they earned in the past because they didn’t have to deal with today’s problems doesn’t hold water. Wealth is a construct built upon the notion of scarcity. One has wealth BECAUSE another doesn’t have it. If everyone had one million dollars, then a million has no value. Imagine I inherited a diamond necklace from my grandmother who inherited it from her mother and so on. The original price of it was $200 and today it is worth a million dollars. Yes, I inherited it. It’s mine. It’s valuable. Because someone else covets such a diamond necklace doesn’t mean that it is unfair that I inherited it. Most of the YIMBY arguments seems to be based on ‘unfairness’. How is it unfair to hold something of value that others covet? To be punitively taxed on an asset that one owns free and clear just because someone younger doesn’t own it is a gross violation of property rights. It’s also ignorant and misleading. Most of all, it’s immoral and petty.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
In the case of the city/situation discussed in the article -- Lafayette, CA -- would you believe it is unfair to step on the property rights of the landowner who wants to put 300 condos or 44 single family homes on the vacant land? It doesn't matter how the current owner of that land acquired it: for any of us to stop them, would be a gross violation of their property rights. Nobody is saying, just because the land you currently own is upzoned, that you have to tear down your single family home and put in multifamily housing. To suggest such would be misunderstanding the position held by YIMBYs.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  I disagree. There is such a thing as law of the commons and welfare of the commons. Air quality, watershed and conservation of habitat are all part of the commons and its welfare. The erasure is CEQA is a step towards zoning changes and in the destruction of the commons.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    So if it's fair for you to say "my neighbor should not develop his land" --by virtue of living near your neighbor-- am I not equally valid in saying "my neighbor should be able to develop his land?"
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      Yes. Exactly. When we all bought in, it was with the promise of a certain percentage for residential zoning and commercial zoning and resource allocation. Any decision should be subject to a referendum of said owners. It doesn’t make sense for non property tax payers to vote on how tax payers and property owners should be taxed. That’s a form of tyranny. Property rights are important to this country and is foundational to why it was formed. Erasing CEQA and changing zoning without consent is against the rights of property owners. Vote on it. Majority decision wins. As long as the referendum is open only to vested interests. Anyone else imposing coercive and punitive taxes and zoning changes is dissolution of property rights. Why should anyone who has no rights to an asset have a say in how it should be treated?
      - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
        I think you should have to physically own all the surrounding land if you directly don't want it to develop. You weren't promised anything, beyond the agency of your own plot: that's what ownership means, right? The choice do decide its destiny. If you wanted that choice for a full square mile around you, should've bought the land to ensure it never, ever was developed. > Why should anyone who has no rights to an asset have a say in how it should be treated? That's my point: you have no rights to your neighbors land. You property rights begin and end at the physical demarcation of your parcel. You never paid for the promise of immutable zoning laws (I would be shocked if your deed made such claims). I may not agree with your position, but I do definitely understand the thought processes regarding it, which I did not before, and for that I am appreciative.