2 ms·

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

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.
- flandish 4y ago
  I do appreciate your replies and can see where you are coming from as it pertains to the article. Zoning is what zoning is - and that’s to be covered by the auto shop or pet store or etc etc. What “triggers” me is this idea that the default state is “consider investment” and not “does it harm one’s ability to enjoy their home.” Sure you cab define “enjoy” as “watch value go up” but that’s clearly not what I mean. The whole “and it harm none, do as you please”, imho, does not consider the wallet. Which, when thinking about investments, is thinking about class divide and puts $ over people. My neighborhood is largely renters. I’m a 1 family across from another 1 family. On my sides are multi families. Renters. Owned by corporations but not kept up. Some in pretty crappy disrepair. If I wanted to claim they affected my prop value, I could. But those corps have MUCH more money to defend and hit back (my house needs paint, etc) … just the same. (That’s not my style though as said earlier) Anyway. I’m tired and rambling. I do appreciate the replies and I do hope I’ve helped some bit to look at anything that comes out of the gate thinking $ before people - is widening the gap and harming people.

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.

flandish 4y ago
I do appreciate your replies and can see where you are coming from as it pertains to the article. Zoning is what zoning is - and that’s to be covered by the auto shop or pet store or etc etc. What “triggers” me is this idea that the default state is “consider investment” and not “does it harm one’s ability to enjoy their home.” Sure you cab define “enjoy” as “watch value go up” but that’s clearly not what I mean. The whole “and it harm none, do as you please”, imho, does not consider the wallet. Which, when thinking about investments, is thinking about class divide and puts $ over people. My neighborhood is largely renters. I’m a 1 family across from another 1 family. On my sides are multi families. Renters. Owned by corporations but not kept up. Some in pretty crappy disrepair. If I wanted to claim they affected my prop value, I could. But those corps have MUCH more money to defend and hit back (my house needs paint, etc) … just the same. (That’s not my style though as said earlier) Anyway. I’m tired and rambling. I do appreciate the replies and I do hope I’ve helped some bit to look at anything that comes out of the gate thinking $ before people - is widening the gap and harming people.