4 ms·

There's a clear distinction here: risk to other people and their property. There's a reason people who make arguments for controlling other people's behavior ha

There's a clear distinction here: risk to other people and their property. There's a reason people who make arguments for controlling other people's behavior have to come up with over the top, ridiculous scenarios with obvious answers. If you're trying to find an answer, find the principles and work from there and you'll find absolute principles are fine. There's no risk to you or your property if I decide to have a car with the hood up parked in my driveway.

noduerme 4y ago
What if you have a different car with its hood up on your property every day? What if you're painting them and venting it out of your garage? Toxic chemicals is not a wild scenario, it's the logical next step. [edit] I'm somewhat surprised by the contention that merely stating this hypothetical is "emboldening" the investor class. Pardon: >> EMBOLDENING THE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTMENT OWNING CLASS whatever that means. I bring it up as it was my experience as a renter whose quality of life (not investment value) was substantially impacted when I lived next to people who were operating a quasi-legal home auto repair shop. I think it's unfair to assume that anyone asking where a line should be drawn on what someone can do on their property is carrying water for faceless, inhumane capitalist corporate investor-vampires, or whatever. And BTW, doing whatever you want on your property at the expense of the neighbors' quality of life or investment value? Kinda antisocial as well.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  If toxic chemicals is the problem, legislate that.
- flandish 4y ago
  We already have laws re environment - STOP EMBOLDENING THE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTMENT OWNING CLASS by pretending those laws don’t already exist. No example given isn’t already covered by a law that already exists. Except in the correlation to a “market” that this “investment” will be expected to perform on. It puts capital and profit over humans and is deplorable behavior.
- friend_and_foe 4y ago
  So legislate the next step then. "No dumping or releasing toxic chemicals" it's not that hard, and the fact that that's not what's legislated, but it's what is used as an excuse for totally different sets of rules tells me that's not the motivation here.
- flandish 4y ago
  Regarding your edit: the ire comes from (at least in my reply) the idea that your logic or example is so shallow as to “by default” support the class of people who can afford to treat homes like investments. There are entire cohorts of people who cannot. Who own one home, barely, or are beholden to a landlord’s (sometimes corporate) whims. Saying “what if they leak oil from junk cars” - resolved via environment law already. “Noise complaint.” - resolved via law already. Too many cars, too much blight? - laws already. Every single example provided couches this as a potential harm to someone else’s investment, and strengthens the divide in class between those who can afford to “invest” and those who cannot and strive to simply exist. Yes, people DO worry about investment. I do. I own my home. My only home. It’s paid off, largely speaking. But it’s my home. I have NO desire or assumption that its value will go to my children or provide retirement income. Because it’s a home. And I look at my fellow working class neighbors in the same way. If someone complains my home needing paint (it does) will affect (effect? I always forget) their investment - I will happily let them paint my house or they can f off.
  - noduerme 4y ago
    From the article: >> it's believed that the code is intended to prevent small independent repair shops from popping up in someone's backyard While other laws may cover each of the potential negative secondary effects of a backyard auto shop on the neighbors, that doesn't mean the group of behavior leading to violation of those laws should remain undefined. Again, to me this has nothing to do with keeping value on an investment. My experience with this was renting... I now own (one) house, and my problem with what the neighbors do has to do with how it affects my health and quality of life. Claiming every possible negative effect is covered by law makes no sense. Leaking chemicals? Could take years to be discovered in the water table. Noise? Not really enforced anywhere... especially not if the activity in question is otherwise legal / doesn't require a license. I don't think it was a shallow objection... and I believe you're reading it through a classist lens of "what if some rich investment owner next door told me what to do on my property" without considering the other side, e.g. someone renting next door to people who do noxious stuff. [edit] also, I can see from your point of view as a homeowner myself who's surrounded by creeping investment properties and Airbnb's... and certainly if they were telling me how to paint my house they could f off too. But that's aesthetic and about their investment value. I guess what I'm saying when you get down to it is the aesthetics of auto repair aren't the part that bothers me, it's living next door to the noise and pollution.

noduerme 4y ago

What if you have a different car with its hood up on your property every day? What if you're painting them and venting it out of your garage? Toxic chemicals is not a wild scenario, it's the logical next step. [edit] I'm somewhat surprised by the contention that merely stating this hypothetical is "emboldening" the investor class. Pardon: >> EMBOLDENING THE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTMENT OWNING CLASS whatever that means. I bring it up as it was my experience as a renter whose quality of life (not investment value) was substantially impacted when I lived next to people who were operating a quasi-legal home auto repair shop. I think it's unfair to assume that anyone asking where a line should be drawn on what someone can do on their property is carrying water for faceless, inhumane capitalist corporate investor-vampires, or whatever. And BTW, doing whatever you want on your property at the expense of the neighbors' quality of life or investment value? Kinda antisocial as well.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
If toxic chemicals is the problem, legislate that.
flandish 4y ago
We already have laws re environment - STOP EMBOLDENING THE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTMENT OWNING CLASS by pretending those laws don’t already exist. No example given isn’t already covered by a law that already exists. Except in the correlation to a “market” that this “investment” will be expected to perform on. It puts capital and profit over humans and is deplorable behavior.
friend_and_foe 4y ago
So legislate the next step then. "No dumping or releasing toxic chemicals" it's not that hard, and the fact that that's not what's legislated, but it's what is used as an excuse for totally different sets of rules tells me that's not the motivation here.
flandish 4y ago
Regarding your edit: the ire comes from (at least in my reply) the idea that your logic or example is so shallow as to “by default” support the class of people who can afford to treat homes like investments. There are entire cohorts of people who cannot. Who own one home, barely, or are beholden to a landlord’s (sometimes corporate) whims. Saying “what if they leak oil from junk cars” - resolved via environment law already. “Noise complaint.” - resolved via law already. Too many cars, too much blight? - laws already. Every single example provided couches this as a potential harm to someone else’s investment, and strengthens the divide in class between those who can afford to “invest” and those who cannot and strive to simply exist. Yes, people DO worry about investment. I do. I own my home. My only home. It’s paid off, largely speaking. But it’s my home. I have NO desire or assumption that its value will go to my children or provide retirement income. Because it’s a home. And I look at my fellow working class neighbors in the same way. If someone complains my home needing paint (it does) will affect (effect? I always forget) their investment - I will happily let them paint my house or they can f off.
- noduerme 4y ago
  From the article: >> it's believed that the code is intended to prevent small independent repair shops from popping up in someone's backyard While other laws may cover each of the potential negative secondary effects of a backyard auto shop on the neighbors, that doesn't mean the group of behavior leading to violation of those laws should remain undefined. Again, to me this has nothing to do with keeping value on an investment. My experience with this was renting... I now own (one) house, and my problem with what the neighbors do has to do with how it affects my health and quality of life. Claiming every possible negative effect is covered by law makes no sense. Leaking chemicals? Could take years to be discovered in the water table. Noise? Not really enforced anywhere... especially not if the activity in question is otherwise legal / doesn't require a license. I don't think it was a shallow objection... and I believe you're reading it through a classist lens of "what if some rich investment owner next door told me what to do on my property" without considering the other side, e.g. someone renting next door to people who do noxious stuff. [edit] also, I can see from your point of view as a homeowner myself who's surrounded by creeping investment properties and Airbnb's... and certainly if they were telling me how to paint my house they could f off too. But that's aesthetic and about their investment value. I guess what I'm saying when you get down to it is the aesthetics of auto repair aren't the part that bothers me, it's living next door to the noise and pollution.