5 ms·

Your note above contains a lot of assumptions about what I think, and vitriol, words like steal, destroy, trash, etc. This seems to be something that you are em

Your note above contains a lot of assumptions about what I think, and vitriol, words like steal, destroy, trash, etc. This seems to be something that you are emotional about. Lots of people think it's immoral for neighbors to be able to micromanage the living spaces of other neighbors outside of basic safety issues. I'm not sure how you'd defend imposing your will on other people just because you can at any given moment. Who are you to hijack the decades and centuries that goes into a city, like you mentioned, and freeze it in time for your convenience, at the expense of others who were born into the same society you were. We're all here together, you can't morally just marginalize people you're afraid of. I stand by my original statement that I think it's wrong for you to characterize everyone who doesn't agree with the way zoning has evolved in this country over the last 100 years as an interloper. We live in a democracy. These are fellow citizens, people who are just as important as you and me. I'm not in favor of big developers or corporations or profits. I don't want to build a high rise or a factory next to your house. I am in favor of lots more real neighborhoods, as opposed to suburban developer big-box retail car centric sprawl. I am opposed to single use zoning. If I had a magic wand I think that the way the Japanese do zoning is much better than the way it has evolved in the U.S. [0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfm2xCKOCNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfm2xCKOCNk

toss1 5y ago
One more fallacy you have posted: >>Lots of people think it's immoral for neighbors to be able to micromanage the living spaces of other neighbors outside of basic safety issues. I'm not sure how you'd defend imposing your will on other people just because you can at any given moment. No one is micromanaging the living spaces of other neighbors. As you say, it's a democracy. I have lived in towns that had zoning, and voted it out. Some years later, there were meetings where people were asking "If we had zoning, this siht would not have happened, would it?", but they did decide to create zoning, then abolish it, then reinstate it. It is simply false to imply that I have some micromanaging power over my neighbor, beyond the democratically agreed rules that require them to apply for variances to the zoning rules, and allow abutters to submit comments on those variance requests, which must also be considered. In Switzerland, you will drive around and see poles standing on land. These are marking the corners of a proposed new building and must be erected for months before a hearing on the building, so everyone can comment and post objections, requests for adjustments, etc. before permission is granted to build. This is not some kind of unfair micromanagement, it is taking into consideration everyone's local concerns before making a decision. Zoning does not exist as you imaging because of petty concerns over property value and fear of unknown people. It exists because too many people will build things that negatively affect their neighbors, and are democratically introduced. I get to vote on them in my town, and you in yours. I don't get to vote in your town, and you don't get to vote in mine, any more than I get to vote in Switzerland, or some Swiss guy gets to vote here.
- mikem170 5y ago
  > No one is micromanaging the living spaces of other neighbors. Your statement above seems quite incorrect. I was thinking that most people in the U.S. can't build an accessory dwelling unit in their backyard for their grandmother. Most people in the U.S. can't build a 400 square foot house on their land. Most people can't convert their house into a duplex or a triplex. Most people can't run a low traffic specialty retail or service business out of their house. None of these are safety issues. You mentioned variances, which can be requested for things like the above. But that's my main point, why should these things require variances? "taking into consideration everyone's local concerns" as you mentioned. Processes like this take away people's freedom to modify their house like in the above examples, without good reason. This is what I was referring to. Why should the approval of other people be required to make the above modifications to a property you own? Maybe this is the main thing that we disagree on. It seems like micromanaging to me. I still don't think you get where I'm coming from when I mentioned Japan. I'm not in favor of developers, and I don't think my ideas lead to that. Did you look into how the Japanese do zoning? I'm guessing you didn't, because all you said to me was "If you like Japan, go there." That just seems reactionary. Japanese homeowners could make all of the modifications I mentioned above without needing permission. It's a good system. Has it's advantages. I think that sometimes people are afraid of change. Some of the stuff you typed in your two replies was interesting, but doesn't seem to narrow down what we are discussing. I don't think the dictionary definitions helped.
  - toss1 5y ago
    There are several reasons that zoning and variances work. First is scale. Very few one-off items will have a big effect. But when nearly everyone does it, it entirely changes the loads on the infrastructure, character of the community, etc. Adding 2x-3x the residents to existing plots will add similar loads to the roads, water, sewage, and services infrastructure. These boil down to very real costs, and if not properly managed, including raising taxes as it happens, will seriously degrade the town. Limiting this is not micromanaging, it is managing. The other is the direct effect on the neighbors. This happened with my grandparent's house, a one floor ranch built in the ~1950s overlooks the Hudson river north of NYC. Someone bought it and wanted to turn it into a 2-story. There is another large house further up the ridge overlooking the roof, the river, and the hills beyond. This change would have destroyed their view of the river and hills to the west. Despite the new owner's significant funds and lobbying, the request was denied and it was sold on. I think this is an excellent result. The owner of my GP's house would have imposed a massive external loss on the neighbor. Sure, there are some neighbors who are absolute asses and will deny everything for spite, and that can be as annoying as micromanaging. At the same time, I do not consider it to be my right to do whatever TF I want, and the hell with how it affects my neighbor - and in particular, I want the same treatment - golden rule. The problem is that developers DO work by the different golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules. They are basically growth hackers (and not in a good way). Any hole in the rules they WILL attempt to exploit in order extract maximum profit from a plot of land. The developer off my back lot line? He's not big, he's a guy from another state who builds additions, and thinks this massive development, with which he has zero experience will be his big retirement payday. Considering the environment and geography issues, I think he is stupid money and that serious developers passed on the lot. But that doesn't stop every random builder with dreams. So, as soon as you allow general conversion from single to duplex/triplex, that is guaranteed what you will get within a few years. Sure, some of it will be people just building a second unit for their family to live on the same plot. But most of it will be builders buying up lots that can then be built out. And they will do it in the way that makes them the most profit, usually short-term - this means regard for the neighbors is zero beyond what is required and enforced. So, while these ideas sound wonderful and egalitarian, the reality is that being more loose about it inevitably leads directly do developer abuses and destruction of what has been created. There may be solutions to this, but if it was easy, it would have already been done.
toss1 5y ago
I can tell you that no one is "freezing anything in time", or "micromanaging the living spaces of other neighbors", or "doing it for their own convenience", or attempting to "morally marginalize people I'm afraid of". I'm making no assumtions, merely responding to what you put in print. Maybe you are merely playing dumb, but you show little evidence of knowing how any of this actually works, or evidence of having even participated in a town meeting, much less actively worked to get any changes done. >>I'm not in favor of big developers or corporations or profits. Actually, that is EXACTLY who you are in favor of - that is how it works. I've seen in multiple locales how developers make alliance with the old-timers that don't like rules, and then they push through zoning variances, overrides, or elimination. And what goes up is NOT anything in remote characterization related to the neighborhood -- what goes up IS as many units as possible, stacked as high as they can go, or shopping malls/factories if that's more profitable. If you don't want "single use zoning", you WILL get multi-use, because the appraisal of everything is done by "best and highest use", which means whatever brings in the most money. So, if they can develop a high-rise or factory within an inch if your property line and make the most money, that's what you'll get. >>words like steal, destroy, trash, etc. This seems to be something that you are emotional about. Yes, I care about it a lot, but my direct experience is that these are the most accurate words to describe what actually happens (not in your idealized concept). We literally have right now, on my backyard, a 50+ acre lot that a developer recently bought in a 2-acre zoned area, with typical lots 3-7 acres. This area is very hilly and includs the wetlands that also stretch onto more than half of my lot and harbor multiple endangered species and a great variety of other wildlife. we and our neighbors literally enjoy this wildlife multiple times every day (and some of it also enjoys our gardens). Did he propose to put up a handful of homes to increase the density but in keeping with the neighborhood? No one would have seriously objected to that, and he could put up a handful of quite profitable high-end homes. Instead he proposed 5 different plans with 60-300+ 4-story condo units. These 60-300+ units would all add that miultiples of the current traffic to a street that now only serves 20 houses. It would also completely trash the environment- Their plan was to literally strip-mine the place, put up 35ft+ retaining walls, plant a few trees and some grass. And tap into the same water supply that feeds the 30-odd wells from the same lot - so this could easily run us all out of water. AAnd the land is so steep that the roadways would exceed the allowable specs for fire trucks in the summer, and this is New England which has winters, so people could easily be trapped in multi-unit buildings with fire & rescue unable to reach them. So, whether you want to talk environment, community, traffic, water, or safety, these interloper developers -- yes, they come from out-of-state and have zero local investment -- are perfectly happy to trash all of it for their own profit, then leave town. This is literally taking paradise and putting up a parking lot - you don't know what you've got till it's gone. And this is typical. There are these multi-hundred 3-4 story projects going up everywhere in the region - anywhere they can find a plot and push it through. And yes, upon finding out about Planning Board meetings to get variances for this, we worked late and weekends for about a month, and shut down this abomination for at least a few years. More people showed up at that Planning Board meeting than ever before, by an order of magnitude. ZERO of them were concerned about their property values. I literally never heard it brought up in a single conversation, email, or meeting. Everyone had concerns, whether it was traffic, safety, environment, water supply, waste treatment, infrastructure, or whatever, but: ZERO ever even mentioned property values. ZERO ever mentioned who might move in (and some of these were proposed to be low-income units, because that gets the developers lower regulations). Yet those are your first accusation, that everyone is greedy and just cares about their prop values, and is "afraid" of who might move in. And your concerns about "steal", "destroy", "trash" are not emotional, they are simply accurate descriptions of what happens. And yes, this is a democracy, and you do not have a vote in the towns which you presume you should improve their rules. If you don't have any skin in the game in the locale you propose to change, your are literally an interloper - just check any definition [1-5]. If you like Japan, go there. If you want to make a difference here, then go to a town or city. Get involved in the governance. They are always looking for people to help. run for a position - you will be welcomed in any decent place. INVEST your money and your time in the place. THEN you will legitimately have a say in how it is run. Until then, stop being so entitled and stop the clueless rhetoric. While you think you are helping yourself and some other poor people, all you are doing is literally helping developers 1) steal value from others who have spent generations building it, 2) destroy the existing environment and culture where they build, and 3) trash the surroundings. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/interloper https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/interlop... [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interlope https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interlope [3] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/interloper https://www.dictionary.com/browse/interloper [4] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/interloper https://www.thefreedictionary.com/interloper [5] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/interloper https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/interlo... [6] specifically, in the Vladimir Lenin sense of a person who is unaware of what they are doing, but nevertheless helpful to the cause. [edits: formatting, grammar]

toss1 5y ago

One more fallacy you have posted: >>Lots of people think it's immoral for neighbors to be able to micromanage the living spaces of other neighbors outside of basic safety issues. I'm not sure how you'd defend imposing your will on other people just because you can at any given moment. No one is micromanaging the living spaces of other neighbors. As you say, it's a democracy. I have lived in towns that had zoning, and voted it out. Some years later, there were meetings where people were asking "If we had zoning, this siht would not have happened, would it?", but they did decide to create zoning, then abolish it, then reinstate it. It is simply false to imply that I have some micromanaging power over my neighbor, beyond the democratically agreed rules that require them to apply for variances to the zoning rules, and allow abutters to submit comments on those variance requests, which must also be considered. In Switzerland, you will drive around and see poles standing on land. These are marking the corners of a proposed new building and must be erected for months before a hearing on the building, so everyone can comment and post objections, requests for adjustments, etc. before permission is granted to build. This is not some kind of unfair micromanagement, it is taking into consideration everyone's local concerns before making a decision. Zoning does not exist as you imaging because of petty concerns over property value and fear of unknown people. It exists because too many people will build things that negatively affect their neighbors, and are democratically introduced. I get to vote on them in my town, and you in yours. I don't get to vote in your town, and you don't get to vote in mine, any more than I get to vote in Switzerland, or some Swiss guy gets to vote here.

mikem170 5y ago
> No one is micromanaging the living spaces of other neighbors. Your statement above seems quite incorrect. I was thinking that most people in the U.S. can't build an accessory dwelling unit in their backyard for their grandmother. Most people in the U.S. can't build a 400 square foot house on their land. Most people can't convert their house into a duplex or a triplex. Most people can't run a low traffic specialty retail or service business out of their house. None of these are safety issues. You mentioned variances, which can be requested for things like the above. But that's my main point, why should these things require variances? "taking into consideration everyone's local concerns" as you mentioned. Processes like this take away people's freedom to modify their house like in the above examples, without good reason. This is what I was referring to. Why should the approval of other people be required to make the above modifications to a property you own? Maybe this is the main thing that we disagree on. It seems like micromanaging to me. I still don't think you get where I'm coming from when I mentioned Japan. I'm not in favor of developers, and I don't think my ideas lead to that. Did you look into how the Japanese do zoning? I'm guessing you didn't, because all you said to me was "If you like Japan, go there." That just seems reactionary. Japanese homeowners could make all of the modifications I mentioned above without needing permission. It's a good system. Has it's advantages. I think that sometimes people are afraid of change. Some of the stuff you typed in your two replies was interesting, but doesn't seem to narrow down what we are discussing. I don't think the dictionary definitions helped.
- toss1 5y ago
  There are several reasons that zoning and variances work. First is scale. Very few one-off items will have a big effect. But when nearly everyone does it, it entirely changes the loads on the infrastructure, character of the community, etc. Adding 2x-3x the residents to existing plots will add similar loads to the roads, water, sewage, and services infrastructure. These boil down to very real costs, and if not properly managed, including raising taxes as it happens, will seriously degrade the town. Limiting this is not micromanaging, it is managing. The other is the direct effect on the neighbors. This happened with my grandparent's house, a one floor ranch built in the ~1950s overlooks the Hudson river north of NYC. Someone bought it and wanted to turn it into a 2-story. There is another large house further up the ridge overlooking the roof, the river, and the hills beyond. This change would have destroyed their view of the river and hills to the west. Despite the new owner's significant funds and lobbying, the request was denied and it was sold on. I think this is an excellent result. The owner of my GP's house would have imposed a massive external loss on the neighbor. Sure, there are some neighbors who are absolute asses and will deny everything for spite, and that can be as annoying as micromanaging. At the same time, I do not consider it to be my right to do whatever TF I want, and the hell with how it affects my neighbor - and in particular, I want the same treatment - golden rule. The problem is that developers DO work by the different golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules. They are basically growth hackers (and not in a good way). Any hole in the rules they WILL attempt to exploit in order extract maximum profit from a plot of land. The developer off my back lot line? He's not big, he's a guy from another state who builds additions, and thinks this massive development, with which he has zero experience will be his big retirement payday. Considering the environment and geography issues, I think he is stupid money and that serious developers passed on the lot. But that doesn't stop every random builder with dreams. So, as soon as you allow general conversion from single to duplex/triplex, that is guaranteed what you will get within a few years. Sure, some of it will be people just building a second unit for their family to live on the same plot. But most of it will be builders buying up lots that can then be built out. And they will do it in the way that makes them the most profit, usually short-term - this means regard for the neighbors is zero beyond what is required and enforced. So, while these ideas sound wonderful and egalitarian, the reality is that being more loose about it inevitably leads directly do developer abuses and destruction of what has been created. There may be solutions to this, but if it was easy, it would have already been done.

toss1 5y ago

I can tell you that no one is "freezing anything in time", or "micromanaging the living spaces of other neighbors", or "doing it for their own convenience", or attempting to "morally marginalize people I'm afraid of". I'm making no assumtions, merely responding to what you put in print. Maybe you are merely playing dumb, but you show little evidence of knowing how any of this actually works, or evidence of having even participated in a town meeting, much less actively worked to get any changes done. >>I'm not in favor of big developers or corporations or profits. Actually, that is EXACTLY who you are in favor of - that is how it works. I've seen in multiple locales how developers make alliance with the old-timers that don't like rules, and then they push through zoning variances, overrides, or elimination. And what goes up is NOT anything in remote characterization related to the neighborhood -- what goes up IS as many units as possible, stacked as high as they can go, or shopping malls/factories if that's more profitable. If you don't want "single use zoning", you WILL get multi-use, because the appraisal of everything is done by "best and highest use", which means whatever brings in the most money. So, if they can develop a high-rise or factory within an inch if your property line and make the most money, that's what you'll get. >>words like steal, destroy, trash, etc. This seems to be something that you are emotional about. Yes, I care about it a lot, but my direct experience is that these are the most accurate words to describe what actually happens (not in your idealized concept). We literally have right now, on my backyard, a 50+ acre lot that a developer recently bought in a 2-acre zoned area, with typical lots 3-7 acres. This area is very hilly and includs the wetlands that also stretch onto more than half of my lot and harbor multiple endangered species and a great variety of other wildlife. we and our neighbors literally enjoy this wildlife multiple times every day (and some of it also enjoys our gardens). Did he propose to put up a handful of homes to increase the density but in keeping with the neighborhood? No one would have seriously objected to that, and he could put up a handful of quite profitable high-end homes. Instead he proposed 5 different plans with 60-300+ 4-story condo units. These 60-300+ units would all add that miultiples of the current traffic to a street that now only serves 20 houses. It would also completely trash the environment- Their plan was to literally strip-mine the place, put up 35ft+ retaining walls, plant a few trees and some grass. And tap into the same water supply that feeds the 30-odd wells from the same lot - so this could easily run us all out of water. AAnd the land is so steep that the roadways would exceed the allowable specs for fire trucks in the summer, and this is New England which has winters, so people could easily be trapped in multi-unit buildings with fire & rescue unable to reach them. So, whether you want to talk environment, community, traffic, water, or safety, these interloper developers -- yes, they come from out-of-state and have zero local investment -- are perfectly happy to trash all of it for their own profit, then leave town. This is literally taking paradise and putting up a parking lot - you don't know what you've got till it's gone. And this is typical. There are these multi-hundred 3-4 story projects going up everywhere in the region - anywhere they can find a plot and push it through. And yes, upon finding out about Planning Board meetings to get variances for this, we worked late and weekends for about a month, and shut down this abomination for at least a few years. More people showed up at that Planning Board meeting than ever before, by an order of magnitude. ZERO of them were concerned about their property values. I literally never heard it brought up in a single conversation, email, or meeting. Everyone had concerns, whether it was traffic, safety, environment, water supply, waste treatment, infrastructure, or whatever, but: ZERO ever even mentioned property values. ZERO ever mentioned who might move in (and some of these were proposed to be low-income units, because that gets the developers lower regulations). Yet those are your first accusation, that everyone is greedy and just cares about their prop values, and is "afraid" of who might move in. And your concerns about "steal", "destroy", "trash" are not emotional, they are simply accurate descriptions of what happens. And yes, this is a democracy, and you do not have a vote in the towns which you presume you should improve their rules. If you don't have any skin in the game in the locale you propose to change, your are literally an interloper - just check any definition [1-5]. If you like Japan, go there. If you want to make a difference here, then go to a town or city. Get involved in the governance. They are always looking for people to help. run for a position - you will be welcomed in any decent place. INVEST your money and your time in the place. THEN you will legitimately have a say in how it is run. Until then, stop being so entitled and stop the clueless rhetoric. While you think you are helping yourself and some other poor people, all you are doing is literally helping developers 1) steal value from others who have spent generations building it, 2) destroy the existing environment and culture where they build, and 3) trash the surroundings. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/interloper https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/interlop... [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interlope https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interlope [3] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/interloper https://www.dictionary.com/browse/interloper [4] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/interloper https://www.thefreedictionary.com/interloper [5] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/interloper https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/interlo... [6] specifically, in the Vladimir Lenin sense of a person who is unaware of what they are doing, but nevertheless helpful to the cause. [edits: formatting, grammar]