4 ms·
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 overri
by 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 agoProperty 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 agoI 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.