10 ms·

I think that most YIMBYs are arguing the opposite: That if I buy a piece of land, and I want to build a duplex in it, all the way to the property line, I should

I think that most YIMBYs are arguing the opposite: That if I buy a piece of land, and I want to build a duplex in it, all the way to the property line, I should be able to do it. As it is, zoning and the approval processes make all kinds of viable projects impossible to do, by the property owners. If I wanted to turn my single family house into a duplex, or just tear it down and build bigger, to far closer to the property line, I'd be completely unable to do so, because the zone is R1, the minimum offset to the edge of the property is enough to part 2 F-150s lined front to back. The maximum legal usable square footage, across all levels, of the house must not exceed 40% of the square footage of the lot. Most of my property must, by regulation, be lawn, and the taller I build, the more lawn I need. There's houses with this zoning structure right next door to supermarkets. So how is asking to be allowed to redevelop your own lot being against private property ownership? If land is so plentiful nobody wants to build taller, the land will remain very low density. But the idea of having a lot that, if razed, would be worth a million dollars, but where building a duplex is illegal is not, in any way, going against private ownership.

nullc 5y ago
> So how is asking to be allowed to redevelop your own lot being against private property ownership? To answer that: consider, would me being allowed to build a joint pig farm and jet engine testing facility 10 feet from your bedroom window be compatible with your property rights? Externalities exist. Changes in the usage-- which includes density-- of the surrounding property can have a real effect on the existing residents. Debate over zoning is just a debate over the thresholds. This isn't to say that existing policies in any particular place are well informed. But the basic concept of setting out the characteristics of neighboring properties, particularly to the extent that these rules were done in advance of your ownership and were clearly established, not only doesn't conflict with private property rights but can help protect them.
- bombcar 5y ago
  There’s a far cry between “no unlicensed pig farms” and “each house must be an entire freeway’s width from the next one”, especially as one is a different type of use instead of just a more dense one.
  - nullc 5y ago
    I used an extreme example, for sure! I think it highlights that stable zoning rules can promote property rights rather than undermining them. Sure, they can go too far-- but there is no fundamental contradiction. > one is a different type of use instead of just a more dense one Differences in density are differences in use! perhaps insubstantial ones--- ones that don't meaningfully impinge any existing residents property right, and if so they shouldn't rightfully be restricted by zoning. And obviously they are-- I'm not attempting to defend existing practices-- only arguing that the conflict is not fundamental and that people arguing over them can all be making reasonable arguments over the right thresholds.

nullc 5y ago

> So how is asking to be allowed to redevelop your own lot being against private property ownership? To answer that: consider, would me being allowed to build a joint pig farm and jet engine testing facility 10 feet from your bedroom window be compatible with your property rights? Externalities exist. Changes in the usage-- which includes density-- of the surrounding property can have a real effect on the existing residents. Debate over zoning is just a debate over the thresholds. This isn't to say that existing policies in any particular place are well informed. But the basic concept of setting out the characteristics of neighboring properties, particularly to the extent that these rules were done in advance of your ownership and were clearly established, not only doesn't conflict with private property rights but can help protect them.

bombcar 5y ago
There’s a far cry between “no unlicensed pig farms” and “each house must be an entire freeway’s width from the next one”, especially as one is a different type of use instead of just a more dense one.
- nullc 5y ago
  I used an extreme example, for sure! I think it highlights that stable zoning rules can promote property rights rather than undermining them. Sure, they can go too far-- but there is no fundamental contradiction. > one is a different type of use instead of just a more dense one Differences in density are differences in use! perhaps insubstantial ones--- ones that don't meaningfully impinge any existing residents property right, and if so they shouldn't rightfully be restricted by zoning. And obviously they are-- I'm not attempting to defend existing practices-- only arguing that the conflict is not fundamental and that people arguing over them can all be making reasonable arguments over the right thresholds.