4 ms·

Amongst the various human rights, the right to build a house should be fundamental, but somehow it was lost to political forces.

bbeekley 6y ago
Housing seems to me to be one of the most government-planned markets due to the strict zoning laws, but I've only seen fairly lefty orgs advocating for relaxed regulation. I'm surprised there isn't more movement from libertarians along the lines that property owners should have more rights for what they can build on their land.
- dugmartin 6y ago
  I think the libertarians are worried that their next door neighbor will drag in a trailer. Ideals are one thing, property values are another. Around here we have a lot of open space advocates that don't want any development (even though we are losing population and in a generation won't be able to fund our schools). I've often wanted to ask one of those folks (normally older with a nice older home) if they are so invested in open space why don't they knock down their house?
  - CameronNemo 6y ago
    >why don't they knock down their house? You kid, but redevelopment of less productive buildings is a pretty important part of preserving open space.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Some libertarians are presumably also in support of "you spent money buying land and a house in an area with full awareness of a specific framework of zoning laws and those laws should not be changed without good cause and due process". (Libertarians are not necessarily and are often not anarchists.)
  - kwillets 6y ago
    In this case it's hardly zoning laws, but rather a framework that allows local politicians to impose further restrictions beyond them.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- asdff 6y ago
  I think there are few true libertarians, and a whole lot more people who call themselves libertarians but instead subscribe to the 'rules for thee but not for me' mindset shared among many neoconservatives.
- generalpass 6y ago
  > Housing seems to me to be one of the most government-planned markets due to the strict zoning laws, but I've only seen fairly lefty orgs advocating for relaxed regulation. I'm surprised there isn't more movement from libertarians along the lines that property owners should have more rights for what they can build on their land. Not sure about what anyone here considers as libertarian, but if you were to ask a libertarian what they would tell you is that if you own property you are free to do as you please so long as you do not harm someone else. Also not sure what you mean by lefty orgs, because labor unions, public unions and environmental groups are the biggest lobbyist influence on the high price of housing. When it comes to affordability, housing is generally (ahem - not "always") less affordable in blue states and least affordable in the bluest regions of the blue states.
  - bbeekley 6y ago
    > Not sure about what anyone here considers as libertarian, but if you were to ask a libertarian what they would tell you is that if you own property you are free to do as you please so long as you do not harm someone else. I think that's why I'm surprised I don't hear that more. The size of someone's back yard or height of their fence (to a reasonable extent) seems like it wouldn't harm someone else, but they're strongly regulated in much of CA's single-family zoning. > Also not sure what you mean by lefty orgs, because labor unions, public unions and environmental groups are the biggest lobbyist influence on the high price of housing. Totally. There are tons of liberal orgs that are contributing to the housing shortage. I mean the few orgs I see advocating for development (eg SF YIMBY, or politicians like Scott Wiener) appear more liberal than libertarian.
    - generalpass 6y ago
      > I think that's why I'm surprised I don't hear that more. The size of someone's back yard or height of their fence (to a reasonable extent) seems like it wouldn't harm someone else, but they're strongly regulated in much of CA's single-family zoning. I'm not sure what you mean, but to clarify: the libertarian position is that if the fence harms no one, then there is no one, not even governments, to have anything to do with said fence besides the fence's owner, as that is the owner's right.
- twblalock 6y ago
  There are two liberties in tension: the right to do what you want on your own land, and the right to live in peace on your own land (which requires you to restrict what your neighbors can do on their land).
  - dionidium 6y ago
    It's odd to me that anyone finds this compelling. You have a right to wear whatever t-shirts you like. You don't have a right to prevent other people from wearing t-shirts with colors you find objectionable. Yet, somehow in housing we've decided that, no, you actually do have the right to object to all kind of innocuous nonsense (window styles, setbacks, paint colors, and on and on). There's nothing so trivial that it's beyond objection. I understand that people would like to control what others do around them, but we should be totally unresponsive to those desires. The sentiment behind modern NIMBYism isn't remotely confusing. Presumably, people who buy a house in a neighborhood do so because they like the neighborhood the way it is and don't want it to change. But...so what? That desire is outweighed by other concerns at every turn.
    - twblalock 6y ago
      There are a lot of things that matter more than window styles and paint colors, and they can have a severe negative impact on quality of life and property values and safety.
      - dionidium 6y ago
        Re: property values: who cares? Again, I don’t find this even remotely compelling when weighed against the rights of property owners to do what they want with their own property. Again, I understand why rational actors want to protect the value of their property. But we shouldn’t assist them as a matter of policy. (And this is really neither here nor there, given my stance, but property owners actually tend to be very bad at knowing what’s going to negatively affect the value of their properties over the long term. Allowing more density would increase values, in most cases, yet homeowners universally oppose it.) Re: safety: sure, there are some reasonable safety rules. Those aren’t what we’re talking about here.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Libertarians are 100% behind relaxing or abolishing zoning. There are just very few of us, and we don't matter.
tobylane 6y ago
The city was given control of limited lands. The solution is to either be involved with the democracy of the city, or be outside of the city.
- xvedejas 6y ago
  At least in California, counties have zoning ordinances and permitting requirements too.
  - asdff 6y ago
    And in LA, local city councilmen operate as feudal lords in their districts with absolute authority on what gets built and especially by whom.
- kragen 6y ago
  This is pragmatically correct, but it doesn't make it just. The city was given policing authority over those lands, too; that doesn't mean they should have the right to torture you until you confess, even if the democratic voters are in favor of that — as they might be, for example, if you're black.
oldsklgdfth 6y ago
If the right to private and personal property is in place (basically having some money) and trading. Then the right to build a house is a consequence. As long as you by land that doesn't have a lien on it you can build a house.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  In theory yes, but there are so many asterisks attached to building a house. You need to run through a gauntlet of bureaucracy to even get permission to build on your land. All of this immensely increases costs and becomes a tool for limiting new housing.
  - oldsklgdfth 6y ago
    In addition, property taxes apply. Which can be quite substantial.
  - j8014 6y ago
    Outside of a few counties in the US the process is very straight forward.
- tomc1985 6y ago
  There is a huge and complicated zoning, permitting and certification process if you want to build your house in city-annexed land
adrianN 6y ago
I like strict building codes because they prevent for example fires, or catastrophic failure in a storm or an earthquake. I'm not so much in favor of the weird zoning laws many areas in the US seem to have.
- bluGill 6y ago
  I agree with the sentiment, but I have to disagree. Strict codes need tend to strict on the wrong thing. I want your house to not spread fire, but that doesn't mean mandate brick or steel construction (and ban many other fire resistant materials that meet the intent but not the letter of the code)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bbeekley 6y ago

Housing seems to me to be one of the most government-planned markets due to the strict zoning laws, but I've only seen fairly lefty orgs advocating for relaxed regulation. I'm surprised there isn't more movement from libertarians along the lines that property owners should have more rights for what they can build on their land.

dugmartin 6y ago
I think the libertarians are worried that their next door neighbor will drag in a trailer. Ideals are one thing, property values are another. Around here we have a lot of open space advocates that don't want any development (even though we are losing population and in a generation won't be able to fund our schools). I've often wanted to ask one of those folks (normally older with a nice older home) if they are so invested in open space why don't they knock down their house?
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  >why don't they knock down their house? You kid, but redevelopment of less productive buildings is a pretty important part of preserving open space.
sokoloff 6y ago
Some libertarians are presumably also in support of "you spent money buying land and a house in an area with full awareness of a specific framework of zoning laws and those laws should not be changed without good cause and due process". (Libertarians are not necessarily and are often not anarchists.)
- kwillets 6y ago
  In this case it's hardly zoning laws, but rather a framework that allows local politicians to impose further restrictions beyond them.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
asdff 6y ago
I think there are few true libertarians, and a whole lot more people who call themselves libertarians but instead subscribe to the 'rules for thee but not for me' mindset shared among many neoconservatives.
generalpass 6y ago
> Housing seems to me to be one of the most government-planned markets due to the strict zoning laws, but I've only seen fairly lefty orgs advocating for relaxed regulation. I'm surprised there isn't more movement from libertarians along the lines that property owners should have more rights for what they can build on their land. Not sure about what anyone here considers as libertarian, but if you were to ask a libertarian what they would tell you is that if you own property you are free to do as you please so long as you do not harm someone else. Also not sure what you mean by lefty orgs, because labor unions, public unions and environmental groups are the biggest lobbyist influence on the high price of housing. When it comes to affordability, housing is generally (ahem - not "always") less affordable in blue states and least affordable in the bluest regions of the blue states.
- bbeekley 6y ago
  > Not sure about what anyone here considers as libertarian, but if you were to ask a libertarian what they would tell you is that if you own property you are free to do as you please so long as you do not harm someone else. I think that's why I'm surprised I don't hear that more. The size of someone's back yard or height of their fence (to a reasonable extent) seems like it wouldn't harm someone else, but they're strongly regulated in much of CA's single-family zoning. > Also not sure what you mean by lefty orgs, because labor unions, public unions and environmental groups are the biggest lobbyist influence on the high price of housing. Totally. There are tons of liberal orgs that are contributing to the housing shortage. I mean the few orgs I see advocating for development (eg SF YIMBY, or politicians like Scott Wiener) appear more liberal than libertarian.
  - generalpass 6y ago
    > I think that's why I'm surprised I don't hear that more. The size of someone's back yard or height of their fence (to a reasonable extent) seems like it wouldn't harm someone else, but they're strongly regulated in much of CA's single-family zoning. I'm not sure what you mean, but to clarify: the libertarian position is that if the fence harms no one, then there is no one, not even governments, to have anything to do with said fence besides the fence's owner, as that is the owner's right.
twblalock 6y ago
There are two liberties in tension: the right to do what you want on your own land, and the right to live in peace on your own land (which requires you to restrict what your neighbors can do on their land).
- dionidium 6y ago
  It's odd to me that anyone finds this compelling. You have a right to wear whatever t-shirts you like. You don't have a right to prevent other people from wearing t-shirts with colors you find objectionable. Yet, somehow in housing we've decided that, no, you actually do have the right to object to all kind of innocuous nonsense (window styles, setbacks, paint colors, and on and on). There's nothing so trivial that it's beyond objection. I understand that people would like to control what others do around them, but we should be totally unresponsive to those desires. The sentiment behind modern NIMBYism isn't remotely confusing. Presumably, people who buy a house in a neighborhood do so because they like the neighborhood the way it is and don't want it to change. But...so what? That desire is outweighed by other concerns at every turn.
  - twblalock 6y ago
    There are a lot of things that matter more than window styles and paint colors, and they can have a severe negative impact on quality of life and property values and safety.
    - dionidium 6y ago
      Re: property values: who cares? Again, I don’t find this even remotely compelling when weighed against the rights of property owners to do what they want with their own property. Again, I understand why rational actors want to protect the value of their property. But we shouldn’t assist them as a matter of policy. (And this is really neither here nor there, given my stance, but property owners actually tend to be very bad at knowing what’s going to negatively affect the value of their properties over the long term. Allowing more density would increase values, in most cases, yet homeowners universally oppose it.) Re: safety: sure, there are some reasonable safety rules. Those aren’t what we’re talking about here.
BurningFrog 6y ago
Libertarians are 100% behind relaxing or abolishing zoning. There are just very few of us, and we don't matter.

tobylane 6y ago

The city was given control of limited lands. The solution is to either be involved with the democracy of the city, or be outside of the city.

xvedejas 6y ago
At least in California, counties have zoning ordinances and permitting requirements too.
- asdff 6y ago
  And in LA, local city councilmen operate as feudal lords in their districts with absolute authority on what gets built and especially by whom.
kragen 6y ago
This is pragmatically correct, but it doesn't make it just. The city was given policing authority over those lands, too; that doesn't mean they should have the right to torture you until you confess, even if the democratic voters are in favor of that — as they might be, for example, if you're black.

oldsklgdfth 6y ago

If the right to private and personal property is in place (basically having some money) and trading. Then the right to build a house is a consequence. As long as you by land that doesn't have a lien on it you can build a house.

Mirioron 6y ago
In theory yes, but there are so many asterisks attached to building a house. You need to run through a gauntlet of bureaucracy to even get permission to build on your land. All of this immensely increases costs and becomes a tool for limiting new housing.
- oldsklgdfth 6y ago
  In addition, property taxes apply. Which can be quite substantial.
- j8014 6y ago
  Outside of a few counties in the US the process is very straight forward.
tomc1985 6y ago
There is a huge and complicated zoning, permitting and certification process if you want to build your house in city-annexed land

adrianN 6y ago

I like strict building codes because they prevent for example fires, or catastrophic failure in a storm or an earthquake. I'm not so much in favor of the weird zoning laws many areas in the US seem to have.

bluGill 6y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but I have to disagree. Strict codes need tend to strict on the wrong thing. I want your house to not spread fire, but that doesn't mean mandate brick or steel construction (and ban many other fire resistant materials that meet the intent but not the letter of the code)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]