4 ms·

Should you be able to trade your right to construct whatever you want in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that your neighbors will be similarly restr

by geebee 6y ago

Should you be able to trade your right to construct whatever you want in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that your neighbors will be similarly restricted in what they can build? Plenty of people would like to voluntarily enter that arrangement. Same with short term rentals - many people would like to trade their right to run a hotel out of their residence in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that they won't end up living next to a hotel.

obblekk 6y ago
Yes, but the law should enforce your agreement with your neighbors, not obligate you to form an agreement as it does today. I think the biggest issue in zoning is the lack of a path to unzone something. If I convince all my immediate neighbors to let me build up (perhaps by giving them some equity in the new building) I should be allowed by the law to build. Today, even if my whole block wants to build up, we cannot.
- geebee 6y ago
  Yes, good point. I would support a more local regulation on much of this (same for Airbnb, I see no reason why people in the sunset should determine whether people in bernal can short term rent their properties). Personally, I don't think you should have to get universal agreement either. Maybe a simple majority? Life does chance, cities grow to new borders, single family zoning that made sense a generation ago can be absurd later. As for zoning vs private contract... well, for historical reasons, that's just how it works in older urban neighborhoods. That's the mechanism by which these property rights are decided. It's not ideal. But at my core, I do think the right to live in areas with certain building restrictions is a kind of personal property right just as real as the right to build whatever you want.
someguydave 6y ago
Should such an arrangement be subsidized by federal mortgage subsidy and federal road subsidies?
- geebee 6y ago
  My answer? No. I'd support ending these subsidies. There are a lot of factors here - property taxes are also sky high for new buyers, so it's a little difficult to consider this one question purely in isolation.
troydavis 6y ago
> Plenty of people would like to voluntarily enter that arrangement. This is still available as a covenant, which encumbers the property deed with restrictions on use. If a bunch of neighbors on a block decide to do encumber their own deeds, they can.
kanox 6y ago
> Should you be able to trade your right to construct whatever you want in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that your neighbors will be similarly restricted in what they can build? This is an excellent point. Zoning ensures you can buy a nice quite house which is surrounded by other nice quiet houses and they won't be suddenly replaced by high-rise buildings. For most people housing is their single largest asset and asking them to "just move" is not a particularly nice solution Without legislated zoning this would still be possible but only in gated communities or similar. I'm not particularly familiar with US law in this area but local regulation seems to be a reasonable way to accomplish this. Where I live a lot of people are complaining about the opposite problem: developers are constructing 7-story buildings in quiet areas, sometimes just outright replacing green spaces. I personally live in a very crowded central area but still believe that suburban areas should be accommodated.
jhauris 6y ago
This is an excellent point, but I don't think that zoning laws are a good fit for that. Zoning laws can be changed (and often are) by a town council or other governing body regardless of what the land owners want. A permanent easement that can be put on one's own property that restricts what one can do on it is much more effective, and is exactly what you're talking about (trading a development right). In my state we have many properties that are covered by conservation easements; these are permanent easements attached to the property that prevent most development and grant some state tax relief. It also obviously negatively impacts land value, but it's voluntary on the part of the land owner.

by geebee 6y ago

obblekk 6y ago

Yes, but the law should enforce your agreement with your neighbors, not obligate you to form an agreement as it does today. I think the biggest issue in zoning is the lack of a path to unzone something. If I convince all my immediate neighbors to let me build up (perhaps by giving them some equity in the new building) I should be allowed by the law to build. Today, even if my whole block wants to build up, we cannot.

geebee 6y ago
Yes, good point. I would support a more local regulation on much of this (same for Airbnb, I see no reason why people in the sunset should determine whether people in bernal can short term rent their properties). Personally, I don't think you should have to get universal agreement either. Maybe a simple majority? Life does chance, cities grow to new borders, single family zoning that made sense a generation ago can be absurd later. As for zoning vs private contract... well, for historical reasons, that's just how it works in older urban neighborhoods. That's the mechanism by which these property rights are decided. It's not ideal. But at my core, I do think the right to live in areas with certain building restrictions is a kind of personal property right just as real as the right to build whatever you want.

someguydave 6y ago

Should such an arrangement be subsidized by federal mortgage subsidy and federal road subsidies?

geebee 6y ago
My answer? No. I'd support ending these subsidies. There are a lot of factors here - property taxes are also sky high for new buyers, so it's a little difficult to consider this one question purely in isolation.

troydavis 6y ago

> Plenty of people would like to voluntarily enter that arrangement. This is still available as a covenant, which encumbers the property deed with restrictions on use. If a bunch of neighbors on a block decide to do encumber their own deeds, they can.

kanox 6y ago

> Should you be able to trade your right to construct whatever you want in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that your neighbors will be similarly restricted in what they can build? This is an excellent point. Zoning ensures you can buy a nice quite house which is surrounded by other nice quiet houses and they won't be suddenly replaced by high-rise buildings. For most people housing is their single largest asset and asking them to "just move" is not a particularly nice solution Without legislated zoning this would still be possible but only in gated communities or similar. I'm not particularly familiar with US law in this area but local regulation seems to be a reasonable way to accomplish this. Where I live a lot of people are complaining about the opposite problem: developers are constructing 7-story buildings in quiet areas, sometimes just outright replacing green spaces. I personally live in a very crowded central area but still believe that suburban areas should be accommodated.

jhauris 6y ago

This is an excellent point, but I don't think that zoning laws are a good fit for that. Zoning laws can be changed (and often are) by a town council or other governing body regardless of what the land owners want. A permanent easement that can be put on one's own property that restricts what one can do on it is much more effective, and is exactly what you're talking about (trading a development right). In my state we have many properties that are covered by conservation easements; these are permanent easements attached to the property that prevent most development and grant some state tax relief. It also obviously negatively impacts land value, but it's voluntary on the part of the land owner.