4 ms·

2. Deciding where people can live is extremely tyrannical. Many people own this land, what’s the plan, take their ancestral home? That didn’t work out well any

by kiba 5y ago

2. Deciding where people can live is extremely tyrannical. Many people own this land, what’s the plan, take their ancestral home? That didn’t work out well any time in history. We are already deciding where people can live. It's called zoning, and zoning laws restrict how we can build our homes, where we live, and what transportation options we can use. My proposal seem tyrannical, yes, but I paired it with improving human welfare in the land we didn't cede to nature, and probably more freedom to build and live overall.

octokatt 5y ago
Crazy talk, what if we started tightening regulation so small communities stayed small, and were increasingly built and revitalized in ways that benefited both the community and the surrounding wildlife?
- smegger001 5y ago
  you would create a horrible housing market where at first very few living in rural areas could aford a home there. killing the middle class in those towns, which would in turn cause the high earners (doctors lawers business owners)to leave as there would be no one that could afford their services, that would then drop the market after they left but all that would be left are the poor now with no jobs. essentially you would be creating a inverse-gentresizing where the middle class leaves then upperclass leaves creating a ghetto.
  - octokatt 5y ago
    I’m not sure where the leap from “create regulation” to “run-away housing prices” happens. That’ll happen in a growing city, but the effect tends to be a little lower in rural communities, particularly if regulation is tightened around expansion and lowered around densification.
generalizations 5y ago
> We are already deciding where people can live. It's called zoning, and zoning laws restrict how we can build our homes, where we live, and what transportation options we can use. Mostly in urban areas. You go to the rural places we're talking about, you might find the zoning is minimal to non-existent. Implementing zoning would absolutely be a new restriction on where people can live, what they can build on their property. People in those areas are often used to doing nearly whatever they like on their own property - short of things that'd be illegal wherever they did them. You're proposing to take that away?
pdonis 5y ago
> We are already deciding where people can live. It's called zoning Zoning is done in higher density areas, because it has to be. It's one of the tradeoffs you make when you choose to live in a higher density area. In rural areas, or even in smaller towns, you won't find much zoning. And people who choose to live in such areas are making different tradeoffs (for example, lack of easy access to many kinds of services that are easily available in higher density areas). Trying to command people who want to live in either kind of area to live in the other kind does not work out well. It's much better to just make sure that people who choose to live in each kind of area bear their share of the costs, and get their share of the benefits.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> My proposal seem tyrannical, yes, but I paired it with improving human welfare in the land we didn't cede to nature, and probably more freedom to build and live overall. Your proposal is upside down. We turn the suburbs into sprawl and take over nature because of restrictive zoning. People want to build a ten story building near the city, can't because it's illegal, so then they build ten one story buildings and use up ten times more land/nature.

by kiba 5y ago

octokatt 5y ago

Crazy talk, what if we started tightening regulation so small communities stayed small, and were increasingly built and revitalized in ways that benefited both the community and the surrounding wildlife?

smegger001 5y ago
you would create a horrible housing market where at first very few living in rural areas could aford a home there. killing the middle class in those towns, which would in turn cause the high earners (doctors lawers business owners)to leave as there would be no one that could afford their services, that would then drop the market after they left but all that would be left are the poor now with no jobs. essentially you would be creating a inverse-gentresizing where the middle class leaves then upperclass leaves creating a ghetto.
- octokatt 5y ago
  I’m not sure where the leap from “create regulation” to “run-away housing prices” happens. That’ll happen in a growing city, but the effect tends to be a little lower in rural communities, particularly if regulation is tightened around expansion and lowered around densification.

generalizations 5y ago

> We are already deciding where people can live. It's called zoning, and zoning laws restrict how we can build our homes, where we live, and what transportation options we can use. Mostly in urban areas. You go to the rural places we're talking about, you might find the zoning is minimal to non-existent. Implementing zoning would absolutely be a new restriction on where people can live, what they can build on their property. People in those areas are often used to doing nearly whatever they like on their own property - short of things that'd be illegal wherever they did them. You're proposing to take that away?

pdonis 5y ago

> We are already deciding where people can live. It's called zoning Zoning is done in higher density areas, because it has to be. It's one of the tradeoffs you make when you choose to live in a higher density area. In rural areas, or even in smaller towns, you won't find much zoning. And people who choose to live in such areas are making different tradeoffs (for example, lack of easy access to many kinds of services that are easily available in higher density areas). Trying to command people who want to live in either kind of area to live in the other kind does not work out well. It's much better to just make sure that people who choose to live in each kind of area bear their share of the costs, and get their share of the benefits.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> My proposal seem tyrannical, yes, but I paired it with improving human welfare in the land we didn't cede to nature, and probably more freedom to build and live overall. Your proposal is upside down. We turn the suburbs into sprawl and take over nature because of restrictive zoning. People want to build a ten story building near the city, can't because it's illegal, so then they build ten one story buildings and use up ten times more land/nature.