4 ms·

It just seems that land in general comes with certain promises, like that they won't create a garbage dump in your backyard or a motorway above your house. That

It just seems that land in general comes with certain promises, like that they won't create a garbage dump in your backyard or a motorway above your house. That and the location is part of what gives a property its value. It's not socialist to heed contracts. These people are also not "capturing value", they paid for their property and want to preserve its value. Also, if you don't care about the environment at all, why don't you build your affordable housing in some affordable place (next to a garbage dump, for example)?

wbsss4412 5y ago
What housing contract comes with any stipulation about zoning? The “promises” you talk about are pure imagination. When you buy a house, you buy the land it sits on (and perhaps some level of air rights), nothing more, nothing less. What you’re talking about is nonsense. The municipality is in charge of zoning and these people are using their political power to enrich themselves, plain and simple. Also, how is building an apartment building akin to a garbage dump? Wherein my previous statement was it implied I didn’t care about the environment? All we are talking about is allowing new houses to be built where there already are houses…
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  By environment I mean the location - shops, parks, houses, lakes, garbage dumps. According to you, if you want to preserve the attractiveness of the location, you are an evil exploiter trying to extract value at the expense of the people. From that I conclude that you don't care about preserving the value of the location, so you should have no issues with building a garbage dump next to the affordable housing unit. I said build the unit next to the dump, but if it feels better, you can do it the other way round. Build the affordable housing, then build the garbage dump next to it. After all, nobody is entitled to a nice environment to live in, and you wouldn't want to enrich the people living there. And I am pretty sure the "promises" are not imagination. At the very least, it seems the residents have a say in what gets build, or they couldn't prevent the building of new houses. So "move there, and you'll have a say in the further development of the area" seems to be a promise.
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    > According to you, if you want to preserve the attractiveness of the location, you are an evil exploiter trying to extract value at the expense of the people. NIMBYs will often cite property values directly as a reason for their opposition. This isn’t some inference on my part, these are their own words. It’s one thing to say you don’t want a literal garbage dump next door, it’s another to say you don’t want more houses around because you want to secure the value of your own speculative investments.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      "Value" is just another way to say it is a nice neighborhood. If only number of available housing units is your concern, then why not simply build them elsewhere?
      - wbsss4412 5y ago
        >"Value" is just another way to say it is a nice neighborhood. Only if you deliberately take my words out of context. I was talking about increase the value of an investment, which is purely a function of supply and demand. Creating unnecessary scarcity by capping supply benefits no one other than the wallets of a small few.
        kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        "Unnecessary scarcity" - in what sense unnecessary? And you can build housing elsewhere, I don't think artificial scarcity is really a good argument.
      - madeofpalk 5y ago
        Like Not In My Backyard?
      - wbsss4412 5y ago
        Location isn’t fungible, people generally need to be geographically located close to their work, family, etc. What makes more sense, for the state of California to massively increase teachers salaries just so they can afford a basic house, or allow yourself to have a few more neighbors? At this point it’s pretty obvious what your answer will be so consider that a rhetorical question.
CogitoCogito 5y ago
edit: I was a bit blind and didn't realize that my point was made an hour ago (here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29229793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29229793 ) already. So I'll change my previous post to ask the following question: > That and the location is part of what gives a property its value. Would you support policies that would keep your property from increasing in value? Or at least to keep it from increasing relative to inflation? If not, why not?
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  It would be weird to make a policy just to prevent people's property from increasing in value, don't you think? Especially if you consider that improving the location (building better roads and infrastructure) would also increase the value. That would be a typical socialist failure, I think, that would only ensure nobody can have nice things. I don't think I would oppose policies that help other people, as long as they don't devalue my property (hypothetically, as I don't actually own any real estate).

wbsss4412 5y ago

What housing contract comes with any stipulation about zoning? The “promises” you talk about are pure imagination. When you buy a house, you buy the land it sits on (and perhaps some level of air rights), nothing more, nothing less. What you’re talking about is nonsense. The municipality is in charge of zoning and these people are using their political power to enrich themselves, plain and simple. Also, how is building an apartment building akin to a garbage dump? Wherein my previous statement was it implied I didn’t care about the environment? All we are talking about is allowing new houses to be built where there already are houses…

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
By environment I mean the location - shops, parks, houses, lakes, garbage dumps. According to you, if you want to preserve the attractiveness of the location, you are an evil exploiter trying to extract value at the expense of the people. From that I conclude that you don't care about preserving the value of the location, so you should have no issues with building a garbage dump next to the affordable housing unit. I said build the unit next to the dump, but if it feels better, you can do it the other way round. Build the affordable housing, then build the garbage dump next to it. After all, nobody is entitled to a nice environment to live in, and you wouldn't want to enrich the people living there. And I am pretty sure the "promises" are not imagination. At the very least, it seems the residents have a say in what gets build, or they couldn't prevent the building of new houses. So "move there, and you'll have a say in the further development of the area" seems to be a promise.
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  > According to you, if you want to preserve the attractiveness of the location, you are an evil exploiter trying to extract value at the expense of the people. NIMBYs will often cite property values directly as a reason for their opposition. This isn’t some inference on my part, these are their own words. It’s one thing to say you don’t want a literal garbage dump next door, it’s another to say you don’t want more houses around because you want to secure the value of your own speculative investments.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    "Value" is just another way to say it is a nice neighborhood. If only number of available housing units is your concern, then why not simply build them elsewhere?
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      >"Value" is just another way to say it is a nice neighborhood. Only if you deliberately take my words out of context. I was talking about increase the value of an investment, which is purely a function of supply and demand. Creating unnecessary scarcity by capping supply benefits no one other than the wallets of a small few.
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        "Unnecessary scarcity" - in what sense unnecessary? And you can build housing elsewhere, I don't think artificial scarcity is really a good argument.
    - madeofpalk 5y ago
      Like Not In My Backyard?
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      Location isn’t fungible, people generally need to be geographically located close to their work, family, etc. What makes more sense, for the state of California to massively increase teachers salaries just so they can afford a basic house, or allow yourself to have a few more neighbors? At this point it’s pretty obvious what your answer will be so consider that a rhetorical question.

CogitoCogito 5y ago

edit: I was a bit blind and didn't realize that my point was made an hour ago (here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29229793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29229793 ) already. So I'll change my previous post to ask the following question: > That and the location is part of what gives a property its value. Would you support policies that would keep your property from increasing in value? Or at least to keep it from increasing relative to inflation? If not, why not?

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
It would be weird to make a policy just to prevent people's property from increasing in value, don't you think? Especially if you consider that improving the location (building better roads and infrastructure) would also increase the value. That would be a typical socialist failure, I think, that would only ensure nobody can have nice things. I don't think I would oppose policies that help other people, as long as they don't devalue my property (hypothetically, as I don't actually own any real estate).