3 ms·

>The developers can offer to pay the people who stand to lose property value, until the proposition is profitable for the Nimbys. That sounds like the exact op

by jdasdf 5y ago

>The developers can offer to pay the people who stand to lose property value, until the proposition is profitable for the Nimbys. That sounds like the exact opposite of what you should be doing! The fact of the matter is the city has taken without compensation the right of people to build whatever the hell they want on their properties. And your solution to this theft of a private right onto public hands is to not just formalize said theft, but to re-distribute such right to those who never had it in the first place, and who stole it via laws and regulations? No. The free market approach is to not interfere in what people can build in their properties. And if a community feels they must interfere, they are welcome to offer the owner of the property payment to purchase that right, which the owner may freely accept of reject. That is what a free market solution looks like. Not theft and subsequent redistributing of the proceeds to the thieves.

KptMarchewa 5y ago
>The free market approach is to not interfere in what people can build in their properties. Unless it affects other properties in real ways - not with abstract "property value decrease". If someone emits toxic fumes, that constitutes real damage.
- jdasdf 5y ago
  Even that would generally not require removing the right of what people want to build in their land! You can surely charge people for polluting the air outside their land, or making too much noise in other peoples properties/public land, etc... Without imposing limitations on what people can build. In the same way you can fine people for littering or putting on loud music in public, you can fine them for doing the same when it's coming out of their property. No need to ban anything outside of the harmful act. And indeed, such a stance, if applied equally everywhere and across the board, would very much be able to replace the few positive effects of zoning. For example, instead of having dedicated "industrial districts", simply by enforcing pollution and noise levels on public rights of way you can ensure the harmful impacts of such pollution impact only those who agree to be impacted. Want to build a loud factory somewhere? All you need to do is buy enough land around it that by the time the noise leaves your property line it's in low enough that its within the same levels as it would be in any residential area. If you can't afford to buy that much land, you can simply get together with other industrialists and build up a private "industrial area" to make good on economies of scale. Best thing is, since that "industrial area" is entirely privately owned, the general public won't even have to pay for the road upkeep inside it! The same thing happens with pollution! Feel free to make as many smoke stacks as you want! You'll be charged for every CO2 coming out of your property line! This encourages industrialists to put in carbon capture right at the source!

by jdasdf 5y ago

KptMarchewa 5y ago

>The free market approach is to not interfere in what people can build in their properties. Unless it affects other properties in real ways - not with abstract "property value decrease". If someone emits toxic fumes, that constitutes real damage.

jdasdf 5y ago
Even that would generally not require removing the right of what people want to build in their land! You can surely charge people for polluting the air outside their land, or making too much noise in other peoples properties/public land, etc... Without imposing limitations on what people can build. In the same way you can fine people for littering or putting on loud music in public, you can fine them for doing the same when it's coming out of their property. No need to ban anything outside of the harmful act. And indeed, such a stance, if applied equally everywhere and across the board, would very much be able to replace the few positive effects of zoning. For example, instead of having dedicated "industrial districts", simply by enforcing pollution and noise levels on public rights of way you can ensure the harmful impacts of such pollution impact only those who agree to be impacted. Want to build a loud factory somewhere? All you need to do is buy enough land around it that by the time the noise leaves your property line it's in low enough that its within the same levels as it would be in any residential area. If you can't afford to buy that much land, you can simply get together with other industrialists and build up a private "industrial area" to make good on economies of scale. Best thing is, since that "industrial area" is entirely privately owned, the general public won't even have to pay for the road upkeep inside it! The same thing happens with pollution! Feel free to make as many smoke stacks as you want! You'll be charged for every CO2 coming out of your property line! This encourages industrialists to put in carbon capture right at the source!