5 ms·

Why not? People use "neighbors paint their house pink" as some sort of canonical example here, but I've lived in neighborhoods with pink houses and ugly houses

by ohazi 5y ago

Why not? People use "neighbors paint their house pink" as some sort of canonical example here, but I've lived in neighborhoods with pink houses and ugly houses and unkempt lawns and so-over-the-top-it-borders-on-creepy Christmas decorations and it has never bothered me enough to care. Why does it actually bother you?

chickenpotpie 5y ago
Controlling paint color is a bit extreme IMO, but people like to decorate their home and it makes sense to me that the view from their home is part of that. I don't necessarily support it, but I understand the desire to have a nice home in all aspects.
CyanLite2 5y ago
Because no one wants to buy a house next door to a pink house with the creepy year-round Christmas decorations. That directly affects the valuation on someone's biggest investment they may ever make in life.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Treating housing as an investment is a horrible mistake. It's an expensive durable good, policy should be focused on making it cheaper over time. (while maintaining or increasing suitability/utility, not by letting it decay)
  - jacob2484 5y ago
    Treating it like an investment IS the prudent thing to do. Is vs. what you want it to be theoretically are 2 different things.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      What's prudent about it? My argument is that treating housing as an investment drives costs up over time and that at a policy level we should not seek to do that, we should seek to lower the cost of housing (while maintaining quality and so on).
      - ekerstein 5y ago
        All policy decisions aside… At an individual level (in the US), it’s prudent because over the last 50 years homes have been shown to keep their value and beat inflation. For many people it’s a rare chance to accumulate wealth, especially if there is a bubble forming in their market. Therefore, they have an interest in whether their neighbors make decisions that lower their home value.
  - sosborn 5y ago
    > Treating housing as an investment is a horrible mistake. In terms of policy I totally agree, but as an individual, nothing has done more for my personal wealth than my real estate transactions. Of course, a lot of that is my location, but in general, real estate (much like stock) goes up.
    - hardolaf 5y ago
      Outside of the last two decades, real estate historically stayed the same price in constant dollars.
      - sosborn 5y ago
        Really depends on location: https://www.hicentral.com/oahu-historical-data.php https://www.hicentral.com/oahu-historical-data.php
Aeolun 5y ago
> Why does it actually bother you? Depends entirely on what the particularly awe inspiring monstrosity is. Obviously I don’t have any issues with it in a practical sense. It’s just the difference between hanging a nice oil painting and the latest abstract fetish. Some people love it, and others do not. If it’s on the outside of the house everyone has to enjoy it regardless of whether they want to do so. While I’m mostly on the side of letting someone do what they want, I think there is a limit.

by ohazi 5y ago

chickenpotpie 5y ago

Controlling paint color is a bit extreme IMO, but people like to decorate their home and it makes sense to me that the view from their home is part of that. I don't necessarily support it, but I understand the desire to have a nice home in all aspects.

CyanLite2 5y ago

Because no one wants to buy a house next door to a pink house with the creepy year-round Christmas decorations. That directly affects the valuation on someone's biggest investment they may ever make in life.

maxerickson 5y ago
Treating housing as an investment is a horrible mistake. It's an expensive durable good, policy should be focused on making it cheaper over time. (while maintaining or increasing suitability/utility, not by letting it decay)
- jacob2484 5y ago
  Treating it like an investment IS the prudent thing to do. Is vs. what you want it to be theoretically are 2 different things.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    What's prudent about it? My argument is that treating housing as an investment drives costs up over time and that at a policy level we should not seek to do that, we should seek to lower the cost of housing (while maintaining quality and so on).
    - ekerstein 5y ago
      All policy decisions aside… At an individual level (in the US), it’s prudent because over the last 50 years homes have been shown to keep their value and beat inflation. For many people it’s a rare chance to accumulate wealth, especially if there is a bubble forming in their market. Therefore, they have an interest in whether their neighbors make decisions that lower their home value.
- sosborn 5y ago
  > Treating housing as an investment is a horrible mistake. In terms of policy I totally agree, but as an individual, nothing has done more for my personal wealth than my real estate transactions. Of course, a lot of that is my location, but in general, real estate (much like stock) goes up.
  - hardolaf 5y ago
    Outside of the last two decades, real estate historically stayed the same price in constant dollars.
    - sosborn 5y ago
      Really depends on location: https://www.hicentral.com/oahu-historical-data.php https://www.hicentral.com/oahu-historical-data.php

Aeolun 5y ago

> Why does it actually bother you? Depends entirely on what the particularly awe inspiring monstrosity is. Obviously I don’t have any issues with it in a practical sense. It’s just the difference between hanging a nice oil painting and the latest abstract fetish. Some people love it, and others do not. If it’s on the outside of the house everyone has to enjoy it regardless of whether they want to do so. While I’m mostly on the side of letting someone do what they want, I think there is a limit.