7 ms·

Well, I would be pretty angry if someone built a gigantic apartment complex next to my normal house, since I bought it on the impression I would not have that a

Well, I would be pretty angry if someone built a gigantic apartment complex next to my normal house, since I bought it on the impression I would not have that as a neighbor

gtirloni 5y ago
You should have bought a considerable amount of land next to your property too then. Just like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. I'm sure no one would complain about that since, you know, it'd be yours and not someone else's.
- nrmitchi 5y ago
  I'm not here to defend unnecessary zoning restrictions, but your argument here is that the right to not be affected by the externalities of someone else's decisions should be limited to the uber-wealthy?. It's completely reasonable to believe that a given person should be capable of quiet enjoyment of their property without having to purchase everything remotely close to it.
  - ladon86 5y ago
    If you want to live in a very desirable area and you also want to have very few neighbors, you should have to pay for that luxury. Right now that luxury is effectively subsidized for a few people who are “grandfathered in”, thanks to the market distortion created by zoning.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    Why should somebody be allowed to keep others out of property that they are not paying for. I find your contention competent wrong on all counts.
    - nrmitchi 5y ago
      That cuts both ways; why should somebody be allowed to induce a negative impact on property that they are not paying for?
      - epistasis 5y ago
        Prohibiting others in an entire area is a far far bigger "negative externality."
- isoskeles 5y ago
  "You should've been filthy rich like Bill Gates!" Really?
  - epistasis 5y ago
    If a lot of people want to be in an area, but you want an area with fewer people, why should your single vote override everybody else's desires? Simply move elsewhere, as nobody has the right to interfere with the free association of others.
    - 8note 5y ago
      Why should people who don't live there now get a vote?
      - epistasis 5y ago
        If I'm making a software product in a specific product area, do I get to keep out other people from ever making that product? If a ship sinks at sea, and there's a deserted island nearby, does the first passenger on the ship that arrives on the island get to claim it and prevent anybody else from stepping onto the island? Do all those other people on the ship get a vote on who can step onto the island even if they were not there first? Does owning a piece of property give you the right to veto a particular person purchasing the neighboring property because you don't want then next door? We as a society have set up a bunch of rules as for how much control people get when they "purchase" property. It's not a single thing, it's actually a bundle of rights, and we have chosen a particular bundle, and that bundle can be changed, and has changed, over time. Zoning is a century old invention. The idea that a single land owner in an area can block the sale of land to others is considered ridiculous by most. But how much more ridiculous is it then saying that somebody else can't build apartments on their land, particularly in areas where lack of housing has caused massive homelessness and and skyrocketing of housing prices.
- ergocoder 5y ago
  > You should have bought a considerable amount of land next to your property too then. Your suggestion is much worse. It'd require millions of dollars. Doing this might also get yelled at by another activist group for buying up all the lands in the city. A better alternative: we could just join city council and vote to reject any new building. Not that I agree or disagree with NIMBY, it's just that your suggestion is much worse than the alternative for NIMBY-ists.
spothedog1 5y ago
If someone built a gigantic apartment complex next to your house it would mean that the demand for housing in your neighborhood was massive and restricted by zoning. Your land value would skyrocket by allowing apartment buildings and you could take a huge pay day and move somewhere farther out from the city. You shouldn't get to halt US GDP growth in its tracks because you want to dictate what your neighbors do with their property.
- ergocoder 5y ago
  > Your land value would skyrocket by allowing apartment buildings That is too far away. That may or may not happen In the short term, the supply just increases significantly. Probably also the traffic and other infrastructure use. Not that I disagree or agree with nimby. Just pointing it out because you only point out one side.
  - spothedog1 5y ago
    Imagine 2 empty parcels of land in downtown Manhattan, one can have a giant skyscraper of any height built on it and the other has to be a single family home. The parcel of land with no restrictions is going to be worth exponentially more because you can built a massively profitable structure on it, the other one is so regulated that it isn't worth any where near as much. The more profit you could derive from a parcel of land the more its worth. Now I used an extreme example just to get my point across but the same principle holds on a small scale. If your house was rezoned for apartment buildings and the demand existed, someone would come in and buy it off your hands for a huge premium. Since in our hypothetical someone had just built an apartment building next to your house, the value of the land is already high, simply allow your parcel of land to allow more structures would cause it to rise in value. On the infrastructure side, its a much better deal for you as well, the combined value of all the property taxes from the apartment buildings will be way more than if that lot had remained a house. Since the road, water, sewer and electric lines are already in place nothing new has to be built. You benefit from all those property taxes coming in from the apartment building while the liabilities to the government have barely increased. The local government can use this new surplus of taxes to build new amenities for you. For traffic, sure but that's why you want to build more pedestrian friendly neighborhoods and public transit so people don't have to drive everywhere. Once you have enough people in a place you could open small shops so they can hang out around the building rather than drive everywhere.
blntechie 5y ago
That’s ridiculous. I can understand concerns about a dump yard or a concert venue or an industrial plant coming next to a residential suburban house but concerns about an apartment ? There will be legitimate concerns like increased traffic, increased enrollments in school district etc. which need to be solved but not stopping an apartment coming up altogether. Also it’s unfair to ask the outside world around your house to be frozen in time because you bought a house at a period of time and setting which you liked.
- 8note 5y ago
  And when you cant solve those legitmate concerns? Then you're stuck with an apartment complex you cant afford, and people who live there still have to drive 20min to get to amenities. Source: I spent a hour in the morning, and an hour in the afternoon every day on the school bus, because development of apartments outpaced development of schools in my community. Also, 20min to drive out to parks, because development of apartments outpaced development of parks and play fields and gyms. Its just as unfair to force people to move because you don't like the way their community already is
djbebs 5y ago
Well, if you want to control what can be built in the land around you, you have a very simple solution. Buy the land around you. No need to restrict what others can do on their land or you on yours

Well, I would be pretty angry if someone built a gigantic apartment complex next to my normal house, since I bought it on the impression I would not have that as a neighbor

gtirloni 5y ago

You should have bought a considerable amount of land next to your property too then. Just like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. I'm sure no one would complain about that since, you know, it'd be yours and not someone else's.

nrmitchi 5y ago
I'm not here to defend unnecessary zoning restrictions, but your argument here is that the right to not be affected by the externalities of someone else's decisions should be limited to the uber-wealthy?. It's completely reasonable to believe that a given person should be capable of quiet enjoyment of their property without having to purchase everything remotely close to it.
- ladon86 5y ago
  If you want to live in a very desirable area and you also want to have very few neighbors, you should have to pay for that luxury. Right now that luxury is effectively subsidized for a few people who are “grandfathered in”, thanks to the market distortion created by zoning.
- epistasis 5y ago
  Why should somebody be allowed to keep others out of property that they are not paying for. I find your contention competent wrong on all counts.
  - nrmitchi 5y ago
    That cuts both ways; why should somebody be allowed to induce a negative impact on property that they are not paying for?
    - epistasis 5y ago
      Prohibiting others in an entire area is a far far bigger "negative externality."
isoskeles 5y ago
"You should've been filthy rich like Bill Gates!" Really?
- epistasis 5y ago
  If a lot of people want to be in an area, but you want an area with fewer people, why should your single vote override everybody else's desires? Simply move elsewhere, as nobody has the right to interfere with the free association of others.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Why should people who don't live there now get a vote?
    - epistasis 5y ago
      If I'm making a software product in a specific product area, do I get to keep out other people from ever making that product? If a ship sinks at sea, and there's a deserted island nearby, does the first passenger on the ship that arrives on the island get to claim it and prevent anybody else from stepping onto the island? Do all those other people on the ship get a vote on who can step onto the island even if they were not there first? Does owning a piece of property give you the right to veto a particular person purchasing the neighboring property because you don't want then next door? We as a society have set up a bunch of rules as for how much control people get when they "purchase" property. It's not a single thing, it's actually a bundle of rights, and we have chosen a particular bundle, and that bundle can be changed, and has changed, over time. Zoning is a century old invention. The idea that a single land owner in an area can block the sale of land to others is considered ridiculous by most. But how much more ridiculous is it then saying that somebody else can't build apartments on their land, particularly in areas where lack of housing has caused massive homelessness and and skyrocketing of housing prices.
ergocoder 5y ago
> You should have bought a considerable amount of land next to your property too then. Your suggestion is much worse. It'd require millions of dollars. Doing this might also get yelled at by another activist group for buying up all the lands in the city. A better alternative: we could just join city council and vote to reject any new building. Not that I agree or disagree with NIMBY, it's just that your suggestion is much worse than the alternative for NIMBY-ists.

spothedog1 5y ago

If someone built a gigantic apartment complex next to your house it would mean that the demand for housing in your neighborhood was massive and restricted by zoning. Your land value would skyrocket by allowing apartment buildings and you could take a huge pay day and move somewhere farther out from the city. You shouldn't get to halt US GDP growth in its tracks because you want to dictate what your neighbors do with their property.

ergocoder 5y ago
> Your land value would skyrocket by allowing apartment buildings That is too far away. That may or may not happen In the short term, the supply just increases significantly. Probably also the traffic and other infrastructure use. Not that I disagree or agree with nimby. Just pointing it out because you only point out one side.
- spothedog1 5y ago
  Imagine 2 empty parcels of land in downtown Manhattan, one can have a giant skyscraper of any height built on it and the other has to be a single family home. The parcel of land with no restrictions is going to be worth exponentially more because you can built a massively profitable structure on it, the other one is so regulated that it isn't worth any where near as much. The more profit you could derive from a parcel of land the more its worth. Now I used an extreme example just to get my point across but the same principle holds on a small scale. If your house was rezoned for apartment buildings and the demand existed, someone would come in and buy it off your hands for a huge premium. Since in our hypothetical someone had just built an apartment building next to your house, the value of the land is already high, simply allow your parcel of land to allow more structures would cause it to rise in value. On the infrastructure side, its a much better deal for you as well, the combined value of all the property taxes from the apartment buildings will be way more than if that lot had remained a house. Since the road, water, sewer and electric lines are already in place nothing new has to be built. You benefit from all those property taxes coming in from the apartment building while the liabilities to the government have barely increased. The local government can use this new surplus of taxes to build new amenities for you. For traffic, sure but that's why you want to build more pedestrian friendly neighborhoods and public transit so people don't have to drive everywhere. Once you have enough people in a place you could open small shops so they can hang out around the building rather than drive everywhere.

blntechie 5y ago

That’s ridiculous. I can understand concerns about a dump yard or a concert venue or an industrial plant coming next to a residential suburban house but concerns about an apartment ? There will be legitimate concerns like increased traffic, increased enrollments in school district etc. which need to be solved but not stopping an apartment coming up altogether. Also it’s unfair to ask the outside world around your house to be frozen in time because you bought a house at a period of time and setting which you liked.

8note 5y ago
And when you cant solve those legitmate concerns? Then you're stuck with an apartment complex you cant afford, and people who live there still have to drive 20min to get to amenities. Source: I spent a hour in the morning, and an hour in the afternoon every day on the school bus, because development of apartments outpaced development of schools in my community. Also, 20min to drive out to parks, because development of apartments outpaced development of parks and play fields and gyms. Its just as unfair to force people to move because you don't like the way their community already is

djbebs 5y ago

Well, if you want to control what can be built in the land around you, you have a very simple solution. Buy the land around you. No need to restrict what others can do on their land or you on yours