5 ms·

No, they don't. Ifbyou want control over who can move in somewhere, or what can be built somewhere, you have a simple solution, buy the land in question.

by djbebs 5y ago

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
People who rent also have voting rights for electing local governments in many places in the world.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  True, but they still don’t have as much influence on local government as much as more affluent residents. The prime example would be Palo Alto. It’s the NIMBY capital of the world. Even Stanford University has trouble with development on land that they own.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    That is mostly their fault for not voting (renters are less likely go vote and thus don't matter). Also their fault for not realizing property tax that the landlord pays comes from rent or lack of maintenance (complex because supply and demand sets rent prices, so tax is a second order effect)
    - chaostheory 5y ago
      The last time that was possible at least in Palo Alto was before they split from what is now known as East Palo Alto. Even if all the renters voted, they only represent 33% of Palo Alto's population; so no it is NOT their fault.
    - VRay 5y ago
      yeah, I wonder if there's anything we can do about this situation All I can think of is to spread the word about zoning laws, since currently we're still in a situation where renters mostly just get angry at foreigners, rich people, corporations, etc. Tokyo probably takes things to an extreme that Americans wouldn't like (all the zoning laws are restricted by the national government, as I understand it). I just think it'd be nice if everyone stuck renting overpriced crapholes in the SF Bay Area would start showing up and voting for denser housing
colechristensen 5y ago
Lots of people on the outside seem to only like self determination for a population when their decisions agree.
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  When you realize that in a democracy the poorest don't vote at all and that we are represented by millionaires, it all seems so pointless to vote. Self determination my ass.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    Democratic process isn’t coming to conclusions I agree with -> democracy is a scam -> an authoritarian solution is required because I’m more correct than everyone else It seems like too many people only have ideals about politics when those ideals result in everyone agreeing with them. Otherwise the whole thing is a rigged scam and not worth the time.
    - snedfree 5y ago
      democratic process isn't actually happening -> it's a scam to call it democracy -> a technocratic solution that meets the needs of the burgeoning disenfranchised population is required because the degree of inequality that we're dealing with is creating severe social conflicts
      - gruez 5y ago
        >a technocratic solution that meets the needs of the burgeoning disenfranchised population is required because the degree of inequality that we're dealing with is creating severe social conflicts I'm sure that the non-elected technocrats wouldn't be susceptible to the "represented by millionaires" problem that you bemoaned about earlier.
        colechristensen 5y ago
suction 5y ago
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  The European approach (eg Netherlands) involves the city buying the land. Amsterdam is doing this now to drive out the tourist shops they don’t like.
- enaaem 5y ago
  Asian thinking: “It’s my land, I should be able to do with it what I want”.
  - suction 5y ago
    "Asian" - so in your mind, from Iran to India to Japan, all people have the same culture?
yholio 5y ago
> buy the land in question. NIMBYs will argue that, in a certain sense, they did: they bought the land their houses stand on decades or centuries ago, when the area was farm land, and then promoted a city charter for a certain type of community, together with every other citizen in the area. They paid taxes for local infrastructure, schools, time and effort to organize and solve community issues, inconvenience when a new water mains or bypass was built etc. etc. This whole communal development is what made the area desirable, it's not like they are hoarding limited farmland. It's the combination of private property + working community rules that create property value. Some owners in the area would now opt out of those rules outside the democratic process pre-agreed to their change, by simply building a large condo building on their plot, depreciating the value of nearby single family homes and pocketing the cash. You can imagine existing owners will fight tooth and nail to maintain the agreed rules. While i don't 100% subscribe to this point of view and there is much to be said about the exclusionary and down right racist behavior it can enable, the issue of urban development is not quite as clear cut as you make it out to be.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  How does new apartment construction impact nearby home values? Usually positively. There can be other issues, of course (more people!) but it’s not right to present increasing density as ripping off the neighbors. https://www.sandyjournal.com/2021/10/04/370780/how-does-new-apartment-construction-impact-nearby-home-values- https://www.sandyjournal.com/2021/10/04/370780/how-does-new-...
  - yholio 5y ago
    The value of land increases with density, but the utility of existing properties decreases.
    - dr_dshiv 5y ago
      What's an example of decreased utility? Less parking? My biggest issue with increased density is shit design. Like, when they spent all the money on lawyers to get approval and stiffed the architects. When it is a nice 5 story building I love it.
jjav 5y ago
> No, they don't. > Ifbyou want control over who can move in somewhere, or what can be built somewhere, you have a simple solution, buy the land in question. That seems contradictory. The existing owners did by definition buy that land they own. So you're saying thus they get to decide, but also that no they don't.

No, they don't. Ifbyou want control over who can move in somewhere, or what can be built somewhere, you have a simple solution, buy the land in question.

by djbebs 5y ago

No, they don't. Ifbyou want control over who can move in somewhere, or what can be built somewhere, you have a simple solution, buy the land in question.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

People who rent also have voting rights for electing local governments in many places in the world.

chaostheory 5y ago
True, but they still don’t have as much influence on local government as much as more affluent residents. The prime example would be Palo Alto. It’s the NIMBY capital of the world. Even Stanford University has trouble with development on land that they own.
- bluGill 5y ago
  That is mostly their fault for not voting (renters are less likely go vote and thus don't matter). Also their fault for not realizing property tax that the landlord pays comes from rent or lack of maintenance (complex because supply and demand sets rent prices, so tax is a second order effect)
  - chaostheory 5y ago
    The last time that was possible at least in Palo Alto was before they split from what is now known as East Palo Alto. Even if all the renters voted, they only represent 33% of Palo Alto's population; so no it is NOT their fault.
  - VRay 5y ago
    yeah, I wonder if there's anything we can do about this situation All I can think of is to spread the word about zoning laws, since currently we're still in a situation where renters mostly just get angry at foreigners, rich people, corporations, etc. Tokyo probably takes things to an extreme that Americans wouldn't like (all the zoning laws are restricted by the national government, as I understand it). I just think it'd be nice if everyone stuck renting overpriced crapholes in the SF Bay Area would start showing up and voting for denser housing

colechristensen 5y ago

Lots of people on the outside seem to only like self determination for a population when their decisions agree.

MomoXenosaga 5y ago
When you realize that in a democracy the poorest don't vote at all and that we are represented by millionaires, it all seems so pointless to vote. Self determination my ass.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Democratic process isn’t coming to conclusions I agree with -> democracy is a scam -> an authoritarian solution is required because I’m more correct than everyone else It seems like too many people only have ideals about politics when those ideals result in everyone agreeing with them. Otherwise the whole thing is a rigged scam and not worth the time.
  - snedfree 5y ago
    democratic process isn't actually happening -> it's a scam to call it democracy -> a technocratic solution that meets the needs of the burgeoning disenfranchised population is required because the degree of inequality that we're dealing with is creating severe social conflicts
    - gruez 5y ago
      >a technocratic solution that meets the needs of the burgeoning disenfranchised population is required because the degree of inequality that we're dealing with is creating severe social conflicts I'm sure that the non-elected technocrats wouldn't be susceptible to the "represented by millionaires" problem that you bemoaned about earlier.
      - colechristensen 5y ago

suction 5y ago

dr_dshiv 5y ago
The European approach (eg Netherlands) involves the city buying the land. Amsterdam is doing this now to drive out the tourist shops they don’t like.
enaaem 5y ago
Asian thinking: “It’s my land, I should be able to do with it what I want”.
- suction 5y ago
  "Asian" - so in your mind, from Iran to India to Japan, all people have the same culture?

yholio 5y ago

> buy the land in question. NIMBYs will argue that, in a certain sense, they did: they bought the land their houses stand on decades or centuries ago, when the area was farm land, and then promoted a city charter for a certain type of community, together with every other citizen in the area. They paid taxes for local infrastructure, schools, time and effort to organize and solve community issues, inconvenience when a new water mains or bypass was built etc. etc. This whole communal development is what made the area desirable, it's not like they are hoarding limited farmland. It's the combination of private property + working community rules that create property value. Some owners in the area would now opt out of those rules outside the democratic process pre-agreed to their change, by simply building a large condo building on their plot, depreciating the value of nearby single family homes and pocketing the cash. You can imagine existing owners will fight tooth and nail to maintain the agreed rules. While i don't 100% subscribe to this point of view and there is much to be said about the exclusionary and down right racist behavior it can enable, the issue of urban development is not quite as clear cut as you make it out to be.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
How does new apartment construction impact nearby home values? Usually positively. There can be other issues, of course (more people!) but it’s not right to present increasing density as ripping off the neighbors. https://www.sandyjournal.com/2021/10/04/370780/how-does-new-apartment-construction-impact-nearby-home-values- https://www.sandyjournal.com/2021/10/04/370780/how-does-new-...
- yholio 5y ago
  The value of land increases with density, but the utility of existing properties decreases.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    What's an example of decreased utility? Less parking? My biggest issue with increased density is shit design. Like, when they spent all the money on lawyers to get approval and stiffed the architects. When it is a nice 5 story building I love it.

jjav 5y ago

> No, they don't. > Ifbyou want control over who can move in somewhere, or what can be built somewhere, you have a simple solution, buy the land in question. That seems contradictory. The existing owners did by definition buy that land they own. So you're saying thus they get to decide, but also that no they don't.