3 ms·

I was using the cooking meth as an example of something that negatively impacts a community even if it seem to only impact the individual at first glance. Maybe

I was using the cooking meth as an example of something that negatively impacts a community even if it seem to only impact the individual at first glance. Maybe a little too extreme of a comparison, but I was just trying to make a point that it’s not unprecedented to make laws that limit other people’s ability to do things with their property. And I do prefer dense walkable neighborhoods personally, but I just also understand the frustration of a community living somewhere because of some quality of that neighborhood, then having that quality ripped away just because a small number of previous inhabitants left.

triceratops 4y ago
There are no guarantees in life. You could allow hyper-local zoning and still have some terrible neighbors that don't pick up dog shit and have loud parties all night. People trying to "keep property values up" has also led to some terribly discriminatory behavior in the past - we should be glad that such kinds of exclusion are no longer legal. If "quality of neighborhood" is so important then said neighborhood should, as I stated above, put their money where their mouth is. Maintain a common fund, and commit to match any offer for any house going up for sale in the community. Stop using everyone else's taxpayer dollars to have cities pass and enforce laws to do it.