4 ms·

A lot of it is based on the environment and investment that the existing homeowners have built in the previous decades. They invested in not only the specific

by toss1 6y ago

A lot of it is based on the environment and investment that the existing homeowners have built in the previous decades. They invested in not only the specific home they bought, but also the neighborhood. They continued investing ever since living there. If they wanted a more dense environment, they would have invested in that sort of location. It costs significantly more to build and maintain less dense-pack areas, from building costs, maintenance costs, to property taxes, and nevermind the emotional investment. Forced rezoning is to simply declare that: "Nope, you and your neighbors have made the biggest investment in your life in creating and maintaining your home and local environment, but we want it. You won't even compensate you by buying you out with eminent domain, we're just going to destroy everything you've built and the value of your largest asset by cutting down the trees, paving the grass, and putting up block buildings for all the people that want to live there, destroying the peace and quiet you've paid exorbatant costs and taxes to build and maintain and nevermind the habitat destruction for all the plants & animals either." It does not work for semi-rural suburbs with 2+ acre zoning, and it doesn't work for quaint San Francisco neighborhoods. I could make more of an argument for the city, since cities are already close to sanitized for wildlife. And, having stopped, for now, a farcical proposal for a high-density building literally in my backyard that would have destroyed a certified endangered species habitat, I can certainly say that it is at best an ignorant prescription. How is it fair to say that some people built X, we want X, since we can't have it, we'll just take it and destroy it? More to your point, I can tell you that it is nothing do do with "greedy property owners". It has to do with having INVESTED in a place and its environmaent, for a specific set of reasons, and having already bought, paid for, and borne the taxes and costs of maintaining that environment, and wanting to preserve that which they have paid for. If they were actually greedy, they would immediately change the zoning laws to allow all that, as they would EACH make a lot more money from their property, and pay less in taxes. They do NOT make those zoning law changes because they agree that each of them will NOT profit from converting to duplexes/triplexes, etc. You have it backwards.

mikem170 6y ago
I understand that you may value your neighborhood. But I think it is tyrannical for you to tell other people they can't safely develop on their property "because you say so". Why should your vote cancel out that of another citizen who wants to build on their own property? What gives you the right? Why don't you and your neighbors buy the property around you if you want to keep it as is? Zoning laws are a modern invention. Historically everyone lived in mixed in neighborhoods. The businesses, the business owners, and the workers all needed to be near each other. Commuter train service started changing that, and then the automobile, allowing the rich to separate form the poor. A good bit of current zoning practices originated in the last century for classist and racist reasons, mandating the size of lots and houses to keep poor people out. The regulatory restrictions on the housing supply cause houses to cost more. I assume you would agree? I feel bad for young people who can't afford a house. Will millennials needs to wait for boomers to die before they can afford to get into a house? It worries me that hedgefunds are buying more and more houses, because it is a rigged market and profitable. It embarrasses me that we don't let homeless people pitch a tent and live somewhere besides hiding in underpasses. Japan is an example of a country that I would say has better zoning regulations. The regulations are set at a federal level, not by municipalities. As the concentration of residents in an area increases the buildings are allowed to increase in height and more businesses are allowed in the area. Industrial areas are kept separate. It is permissible to build housing in an industrial area if one wants to, but not the other way around. That seems logical and fair to me. San Francisco is a good example of the problems caused by restrictive zoning. It appears that folks who didn't want to change the character of their neighborhood have changed it quite a bit. The San Francisco of today is nothing like it was two generations ago. Only certain people can afford to live there now. Instead of hippies, free thinkers, and musicians it is now a place known for overpaid tech workers, NIMBYs, and bums. It is so dysfunctional that teachers, fire, and police workers can't afford to live there anymore. Is that the character that current property owners cherish? Or their ever increasing property values?
- toss1 6y ago
  >>Why should your vote cancel out that of another citizen who wants to build on their own property? What gives you the right? Why don't you and your neighbors buy the property around you if you want to keep it as is? Good question. And you answered it. We ALREADY DID BUY THE PROPERTY, each of us did. We, and our forebears decided collectively, as the property owners in our locale, that these are the rules that WE want to live under (plus, my town also voted to tax ourselves to actively fund open land purchases, and often donates to conservation groups). These Ts & Cs are plain to anyone who wants to move in. If you want a 1-fam+2acres, here you go. If you want to build a dense-pack condo, go elsewhere. I'd love to put up a barn for my carbon fiber fabrication biz, but I knew that was not an option when I purchased - I chose this. Yes, it increases prices, it also increases value. The increase in prices also increases the supply, even if not in that exact location. Some towns see the opportunity to make more, and they relax their zoning laws and allow denser development. Some towns don't, and preserve their open space. But all it takes is a couple massive developments breaking the rules to literally destroy generations of maintaining unbuilt spaces and purchasing open land. I just do not see where it is on anyone outside the locale has the right to say that it is their right to simply destroy all that investment because they want it. That's no different from me declaring that I want this 100 square mile citiscape to be razed and returned to woodland without paying for it. Again, the solution is exactly as you suggested: buy it. If you and your friends are so convinced that it is a greater good to have densepack development, then pay the taxes or form a fund to buy sufficient land and become citizens of the locale in sufficient numbers to change the zoning and build it out. Just because you are a citizen of the country does not mean you are a citizen of this town. Just because I am a citizen of the country, does not mean I'm a citizen of your town. I shouldn't be able to set the rules in your town any more than you should be able to set them in mine (and yes, some things like environmental standards should be set on a national or even international level).
  - mikem170 6y ago
    The difference seems to be that you place more value on what the group has decided versus what an individual may have wanted. That is the definition of tyranny. You and your gang of neighbors would be telling other property owners what they can and can't do with their property. There's 'no principal involved, just that there are more of you. I side with the individual unless there is a really good reason not to. I'm even offended that you and your neighbors are not just making decisions that apply to you and your neighbors, but also apply to future generations. Do you have any opinion on the way the Japanese regulate zoning?

by toss1 6y ago

mikem170 6y ago

I understand that you may value your neighborhood. But I think it is tyrannical for you to tell other people they can't safely develop on their property "because you say so". Why should your vote cancel out that of another citizen who wants to build on their own property? What gives you the right? Why don't you and your neighbors buy the property around you if you want to keep it as is? Zoning laws are a modern invention. Historically everyone lived in mixed in neighborhoods. The businesses, the business owners, and the workers all needed to be near each other. Commuter train service started changing that, and then the automobile, allowing the rich to separate form the poor. A good bit of current zoning practices originated in the last century for classist and racist reasons, mandating the size of lots and houses to keep poor people out. The regulatory restrictions on the housing supply cause houses to cost more. I assume you would agree? I feel bad for young people who can't afford a house. Will millennials needs to wait for boomers to die before they can afford to get into a house? It worries me that hedgefunds are buying more and more houses, because it is a rigged market and profitable. It embarrasses me that we don't let homeless people pitch a tent and live somewhere besides hiding in underpasses. Japan is an example of a country that I would say has better zoning regulations. The regulations are set at a federal level, not by municipalities. As the concentration of residents in an area increases the buildings are allowed to increase in height and more businesses are allowed in the area. Industrial areas are kept separate. It is permissible to build housing in an industrial area if one wants to, but not the other way around. That seems logical and fair to me. San Francisco is a good example of the problems caused by restrictive zoning. It appears that folks who didn't want to change the character of their neighborhood have changed it quite a bit. The San Francisco of today is nothing like it was two generations ago. Only certain people can afford to live there now. Instead of hippies, free thinkers, and musicians it is now a place known for overpaid tech workers, NIMBYs, and bums. It is so dysfunctional that teachers, fire, and police workers can't afford to live there anymore. Is that the character that current property owners cherish? Or their ever increasing property values?

toss1 6y ago
>>Why should your vote cancel out that of another citizen who wants to build on their own property? What gives you the right? Why don't you and your neighbors buy the property around you if you want to keep it as is? Good question. And you answered it. We ALREADY DID BUY THE PROPERTY, each of us did. We, and our forebears decided collectively, as the property owners in our locale, that these are the rules that WE want to live under (plus, my town also voted to tax ourselves to actively fund open land purchases, and often donates to conservation groups). These Ts & Cs are plain to anyone who wants to move in. If you want a 1-fam+2acres, here you go. If you want to build a dense-pack condo, go elsewhere. I'd love to put up a barn for my carbon fiber fabrication biz, but I knew that was not an option when I purchased - I chose this. Yes, it increases prices, it also increases value. The increase in prices also increases the supply, even if not in that exact location. Some towns see the opportunity to make more, and they relax their zoning laws and allow denser development. Some towns don't, and preserve their open space. But all it takes is a couple massive developments breaking the rules to literally destroy generations of maintaining unbuilt spaces and purchasing open land. I just do not see where it is on anyone outside the locale has the right to say that it is their right to simply destroy all that investment because they want it. That's no different from me declaring that I want this 100 square mile citiscape to be razed and returned to woodland without paying for it. Again, the solution is exactly as you suggested: buy it. If you and your friends are so convinced that it is a greater good to have densepack development, then pay the taxes or form a fund to buy sufficient land and become citizens of the locale in sufficient numbers to change the zoning and build it out. Just because you are a citizen of the country does not mean you are a citizen of this town. Just because I am a citizen of the country, does not mean I'm a citizen of your town. I shouldn't be able to set the rules in your town any more than you should be able to set them in mine (and yes, some things like environmental standards should be set on a national or even international level).
- mikem170 6y ago
  The difference seems to be that you place more value on what the group has decided versus what an individual may have wanted. That is the definition of tyranny. You and your gang of neighbors would be telling other property owners what they can and can't do with their property. There's 'no principal involved, just that there are more of you. I side with the individual unless there is a really good reason not to. I'm even offended that you and your neighbors are not just making decisions that apply to you and your neighbors, but also apply to future generations. Do you have any opinion on the way the Japanese regulate zoning?