4 ms·

Or at least don't want them in their neighborhood where they lower home values. This is where less local democracy would benefit the good for everyone. Especial

Or at least don't want them in their neighborhood where they lower home values. This is where less local democracy would benefit the good for everyone. Especially, considering that out had been down in studies that folks who show up to community meetings are not representative. They tend to be older, wealthier and whiter and more male.

aperson_hello 5y ago
This exactly. So instead of having poorer people living in the apartment building next to you like you do in much of the midwest or south, you have them living in the van parked in front of your house like you do on the west coast. They still exist in your neighborhood, but in a way that's worse for everyone involved!
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  And then of course they’ll suggest that “something” must be done about the homelessness crisis, and things get worse still.
mikem170 5y ago
Perhaps this is where democracy meets principals... The principal is that someone should be free to build on their land as long as they don't create safety issues or significantly impose on someone else. Democracy at worst can be mob rule. Principals are important. Japan does a good with federal zoning regulations. It's not impossible.
- sempron64 5y ago
  Define “significantly impose”. That’s the basic problem, existing near someone can have effects that are easy to justify in court unless you legislate that e.g. decreasing or limiting increase on future land values cannot be considered to be civil damages.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    > Define “significantly impose”. That’s the basic problem, I agree. > existing near someone can have effects that are easy to justify in court I had the impression this was a "mob rule" problem, that local voters were voting for zoning laws that limit the quality and quantity of new housing. I admit to not understanding the legal or moral justification. It just doesn't seem right to micromanage others to the extent that occurs today. There are other countries that are much more flexible, like Japan [0]. Instead of single family single use zoning they start with three story multi-use housing. Some places in the U.S. are moving in this direction. > decreasing or limiting increase on future land values That can be flipped around. Someone who opposes new housing is taking value from the people who could have made use of that new housing, had it been allowed. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfm2xCKOCNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfm2xCKOCNk
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      If we’re talking about California, “mob rule”[0] isn’t the right framing. This isn’t a majority of citizens suppressing the rights of people to build on their own property, it’s a minority using asymmetric political involvement to get their way. The recent lawsuit against UC Berkeley is a great example. A handful of cranks angry about UC Berkeley admissions abused an environmental review process to impose their will on their town. Not the will of the majority, but rather the tyranny of the most rich and petty. 0 - I prefer the term “tyranny of the majority”.
      - danuker 5y ago
        Another example is HOAs. They have devolved into instruments of tyranny.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        Indeed. Not getting a HOA was a hard requirement for us. The fascinating thing about HOAs is that they’re all done under the guise that they “improve property values”, but I’ve never seen any evidence that this works. From my geographic location it seems like non-HOA factors drive prices (supply, demand, neighborhood location and nearby amenities like transit and shopping), not whether or not the neighbors flower bed matches the “neighborhood character”[0]. From what I see it just seems to let petty tyrants control their neighbors; the property value argument seems like a transparent excuse. 0 - You see this phrase a lot in zoning discussions and it makes me feel like I’m taking crazy pills. As if neighborhood character is a concrete thing that can be pointed to and protected, rather than a constantly changing and emergent result of the humans living in a place.
- roflc0ptic 5y ago
  (utterly pedantic comment: I think the word here is "principle", not "principal" - principle is a foundational belief, principal is a synonym for "first".)

aperson_hello 5y ago

This exactly. So instead of having poorer people living in the apartment building next to you like you do in much of the midwest or south, you have them living in the van parked in front of your house like you do on the west coast. They still exist in your neighborhood, but in a way that's worse for everyone involved!

ashtonkem 5y ago
And then of course they’ll suggest that “something” must be done about the homelessness crisis, and things get worse still.

mikem170 5y ago

Perhaps this is where democracy meets principals... The principal is that someone should be free to build on their land as long as they don't create safety issues or significantly impose on someone else. Democracy at worst can be mob rule. Principals are important. Japan does a good with federal zoning regulations. It's not impossible.

sempron64 5y ago
Define “significantly impose”. That’s the basic problem, existing near someone can have effects that are easy to justify in court unless you legislate that e.g. decreasing or limiting increase on future land values cannot be considered to be civil damages.
- mikem170 5y ago
  > Define “significantly impose”. That’s the basic problem, I agree. > existing near someone can have effects that are easy to justify in court I had the impression this was a "mob rule" problem, that local voters were voting for zoning laws that limit the quality and quantity of new housing. I admit to not understanding the legal or moral justification. It just doesn't seem right to micromanage others to the extent that occurs today. There are other countries that are much more flexible, like Japan [0]. Instead of single family single use zoning they start with three story multi-use housing. Some places in the U.S. are moving in this direction. > decreasing or limiting increase on future land values That can be flipped around. Someone who opposes new housing is taking value from the people who could have made use of that new housing, had it been allowed. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfm2xCKOCNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfm2xCKOCNk
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    If we’re talking about California, “mob rule”[0] isn’t the right framing. This isn’t a majority of citizens suppressing the rights of people to build on their own property, it’s a minority using asymmetric political involvement to get their way. The recent lawsuit against UC Berkeley is a great example. A handful of cranks angry about UC Berkeley admissions abused an environmental review process to impose their will on their town. Not the will of the majority, but rather the tyranny of the most rich and petty. 0 - I prefer the term “tyranny of the majority”.
    - danuker 5y ago
      Another example is HOAs. They have devolved into instruments of tyranny.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        Indeed. Not getting a HOA was a hard requirement for us. The fascinating thing about HOAs is that they’re all done under the guise that they “improve property values”, but I’ve never seen any evidence that this works. From my geographic location it seems like non-HOA factors drive prices (supply, demand, neighborhood location and nearby amenities like transit and shopping), not whether or not the neighbors flower bed matches the “neighborhood character”[0]. From what I see it just seems to let petty tyrants control their neighbors; the property value argument seems like a transparent excuse. 0 - You see this phrase a lot in zoning discussions and it makes me feel like I’m taking crazy pills. As if neighborhood character is a concrete thing that can be pointed to and protected, rather than a constantly changing and emergent result of the humans living in a place.
roflc0ptic 5y ago
(utterly pedantic comment: I think the word here is "principle", not "principal" - principle is a foundational belief, principal is a synonym for "first".)