4 ms·

I don't think you should be blindly downvoted for this -- I think it is a totally valid question, and one that the YIMBY movement needs to find a way to answer

by ketzo 4y ago

I don't think you should be blindly downvoted for this -- I think it is a totally valid question, and one that the YIMBY movement needs to find a way to answer consistently. Personally, I would say that lots of low-density communities do remain low-density. And generally, that's because people don't want to move to them. But if you're a small town in Northern California, one of the most desirable places in the world, saying "we want to remain low density" is basically saying "we got here first, so it's ours -- nobody else gets to have this!" And I think that's a fundamentally wrong way for us to organize our places. Desirable communities shouldn't be able to keep out people who want to come in, just because they want to stay exclusive. But I don't think that's a settled point, and there is a lot of nuance to basically every adjective I just used.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
foobarian 4y ago
It seems pretty clear cut given the focus on property rights in the States that whoever got there first does get to call the shots. There are maybe some overrides like eminent domain but it seems the only non-coercive way to change this is to get your own land and make your own rules (e.g. HOAs, incorporate towns with better rules, etc). Besides, who's to say that these desirable places are not desirable because they are low-density? It's a chicken and egg problem.
- closeparen 4y ago
  Property rights absolutism would mean landowners can build what they want. Zoning has already moved the question of allowed building types into the realm of public policy; now we’re talking about what the policy should be.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  > It seems pretty clear cut given the focus on property rights in the States that whoever got there first does get to call the shots. If we're concerned about property rights, why can't the property owners build at a higher density? Or sell to a developer that will build at a higher density? The fact is the zoning at play _restricts_ property rights it doesn't protect them. Anyway zoning was never static (it wasn't ordained by God after all), so changing it isn't really a big deal. People are angry and surprised of course, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time.
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  > Besides, who's to say that these desirable places are not desirable because they are low-density? It's a chicken and egg problem. If this were true, you wouldn't need zoning, and people would just build low density because that's what everyone wants anyways.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- ketzo 4y ago
  I am super-duper not a lawyer, so I don't have a sense of what is true and legal. I'm mostly talking about what I think should be true and legal.
davidw 4y ago
At a certain point, it starts to be like "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner" when you get some of these communities that don't want anyone else there. And that's fundamentally unfair. I like the Strong Towns notion of "no massive changes anywhere, but lots of smaller changes everywhere", although in practice it's not always quite so smooth.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
My answer comes from more of a Libertarian perspective it is quite simple. The community does not own the privately held land. If every landowner in the community opposed development, zoning would be unnecessary. If some individuals want to sell to Developers, zoning is just oppression of the minority by Democratic means. Being part of a democracy does not mean you get to control every single action that could impact you.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  The majority can also buy out someone who wants to sell to a developer. I know a neighborhood where everyone pitched in to buy land that would have been developed and ruined their view, depreciating property prices. But they put their money where their mouths were by buying the land themselves.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    That's another reason that people are frustrated with Central planning. Your community might have a very strong opinion, but they're not willing to pay for it. This means that they will settle for making it illegal.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by ketzo 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

foobarian 4y ago

It seems pretty clear cut given the focus on property rights in the States that whoever got there first does get to call the shots. There are maybe some overrides like eminent domain but it seems the only non-coercive way to change this is to get your own land and make your own rules (e.g. HOAs, incorporate towns with better rules, etc). Besides, who's to say that these desirable places are not desirable because they are low-density? It's a chicken and egg problem.

closeparen 4y ago
Property rights absolutism would mean landowners can build what they want. Zoning has already moved the question of allowed building types into the realm of public policy; now we’re talking about what the policy should be.
CogitoCogito 4y ago
> It seems pretty clear cut given the focus on property rights in the States that whoever got there first does get to call the shots. If we're concerned about property rights, why can't the property owners build at a higher density? Or sell to a developer that will build at a higher density? The fact is the zoning at play _restricts_ property rights it doesn't protect them. Anyway zoning was never static (it wasn't ordained by God after all), so changing it isn't really a big deal. People are angry and surprised of course, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time.
bcrosby95 4y ago
> Besides, who's to say that these desirable places are not desirable because they are low-density? It's a chicken and egg problem. If this were true, you wouldn't need zoning, and people would just build low density because that's what everyone wants anyways.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ketzo 4y ago
I am super-duper not a lawyer, so I don't have a sense of what is true and legal. I'm mostly talking about what I think should be true and legal.

davidw 4y ago

At a certain point, it starts to be like "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner" when you get some of these communities that don't want anyone else there. And that's fundamentally unfair. I like the Strong Towns notion of "no massive changes anywhere, but lots of smaller changes everywhere", although in practice it's not always quite so smooth.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

My answer comes from more of a Libertarian perspective it is quite simple. The community does not own the privately held land. If every landowner in the community opposed development, zoning would be unnecessary. If some individuals want to sell to Developers, zoning is just oppression of the minority by Democratic means. Being part of a democracy does not mean you get to control every single action that could impact you.

mannerheim 4y ago
The majority can also buy out someone who wants to sell to a developer. I know a neighborhood where everyone pitched in to buy land that would have been developed and ruined their view, depreciating property prices. But they put their money where their mouths were by buying the land themselves.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  That's another reason that people are frustrated with Central planning. Your community might have a very strong opinion, but they're not willing to pay for it. This means that they will settle for making it illegal.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]