4 ms·

If you didn't buy it then why should I compensate you? Why should my previous houses height be your concern? Did you pay me for that? If you had a view before

If you didn't buy it then why should I compensate you? Why should my previous houses height be your concern? Did you pay me for that? If you had a view before for free why is it my problem that you don't now? You could have bought the land to guarantee it, why didn't you? Some of these are HoA restrictions which were shared covenants agreed upon in the past but we really need to reconsider the efficacy of allowing those to be enforceable. Why is it up to a group of people who are all dead how tall a house I can build? Very infrequently are people making housing decisions based on such covenants and pricing ignores them. However when NIMBY comes up suddenly people want to be compensated for what they didn't pay for, didn't require as a stipulation of the property purchase, and weren't party to the original agreement.

Pet_Ant 3y ago
> didn't require as a stipulation of the property purchase because those are just too difficult to all list. The solution to that is a mutually shared list of conditions which is then called "zoning", which HN loves to rail about. I'm offering a fair value compensation in lieu of zoning. If you really don't think you should have anything to say about your neighbors' houses, I will happily buy all of them and build tall fences that ensure your house only ever sees light at noon, and then maybe still at 12:01. Complaining about people's "I've got mine, so screw you buddy" with "I want mine, so screw you" is unbecoming. can't just be market rate though, because there is legitimate pain and suffering to disrupting the community and breaking it apart etc, so that needs to be comped too.
- Guvante 3y ago
  Zoning needs to be logical. Not allowing any residential in commercial is ridiculous for instance. We had homes above businesses for longer than we haven't and dropping them was a mistake. Industrial restrictions are fine. Commercial restrictions could be okay if we allowed anything within walking distance of most homes. It isn't that zoning laws are bad it is that the current set don't match what we should be planning for. Making up examples where you could piss someone off on purpose is pointless and avoids actually engaging on my point. Why does something you could gain but never actually valued something you should be paid for. In many cases people simply block because "there will be more traffic" as if they have a right to a certain amount of traffic. You can gain benefits for free but stop pretending society needs to pay you to remove those benefits. On the topic of culture: gentrification has been ignored so I don't care fundamentally. Mostly "culture" is just a new form of redlining "I don't want to be near poor people they are gross".
singleshot_ 3y ago
> Why is it up to a group of people who are all dead how tall a house I can build? Same reason you don’t drive on the left side of the road: your beliefs are no match for the reality of the law.
- Guvante 3y ago
  The point is those rules weren't made to match the current set of conditions. Driving on the right does.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    If you build a spite fence next to my property in order to enrage me, we will have largely the same problem that your grandfather and my grandfather would have had: you will chortle with glee and I will grind my teeth. The solution (zoning, nuisance torts, private law) remains largely the same today as it did in the past. It seems like the suggestion in this thread is that if I don’t like it, I should have moved or prevented you from building. This seems like a somewhat Neolithic solution to me, and I’m glad we have solved these problems.
    - Guvante 3y ago
      I didn't say spite fences were okay did I? Why does blocking legitimate building have to be the same as spite fences? The reality is what purpose you are doing something for matters. Remember NIMBY blocks and any all building not just cherry picked "I won't get enough sunlight so we can't add a hundred new apartments".
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - singleshot_ 3y ago
        Yes, that is the objective. We have these rules today for the same reason we had them yesterday: to protect proprietary interests.

Pet_Ant 3y ago

> didn't require as a stipulation of the property purchase because those are just too difficult to all list. The solution to that is a mutually shared list of conditions which is then called "zoning", which HN loves to rail about. I'm offering a fair value compensation in lieu of zoning. If you really don't think you should have anything to say about your neighbors' houses, I will happily buy all of them and build tall fences that ensure your house only ever sees light at noon, and then maybe still at 12:01. Complaining about people's "I've got mine, so screw you buddy" with "I want mine, so screw you" is unbecoming. can't just be market rate though, because there is legitimate pain and suffering to disrupting the community and breaking it apart etc, so that needs to be comped too.

Guvante 3y ago
Zoning needs to be logical. Not allowing any residential in commercial is ridiculous for instance. We had homes above businesses for longer than we haven't and dropping them was a mistake. Industrial restrictions are fine. Commercial restrictions could be okay if we allowed anything within walking distance of most homes. It isn't that zoning laws are bad it is that the current set don't match what we should be planning for. Making up examples where you could piss someone off on purpose is pointless and avoids actually engaging on my point. Why does something you could gain but never actually valued something you should be paid for. In many cases people simply block because "there will be more traffic" as if they have a right to a certain amount of traffic. You can gain benefits for free but stop pretending society needs to pay you to remove those benefits. On the topic of culture: gentrification has been ignored so I don't care fundamentally. Mostly "culture" is just a new form of redlining "I don't want to be near poor people they are gross".

singleshot_ 3y ago

> Why is it up to a group of people who are all dead how tall a house I can build? Same reason you don’t drive on the left side of the road: your beliefs are no match for the reality of the law.

Guvante 3y ago
The point is those rules weren't made to match the current set of conditions. Driving on the right does.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  If you build a spite fence next to my property in order to enrage me, we will have largely the same problem that your grandfather and my grandfather would have had: you will chortle with glee and I will grind my teeth. The solution (zoning, nuisance torts, private law) remains largely the same today as it did in the past. It seems like the suggestion in this thread is that if I don’t like it, I should have moved or prevented you from building. This seems like a somewhat Neolithic solution to me, and I’m glad we have solved these problems.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    I didn't say spite fences were okay did I? Why does blocking legitimate building have to be the same as spite fences? The reality is what purpose you are doing something for matters. Remember NIMBY blocks and any all building not just cherry picked "I won't get enough sunlight so we can't add a hundred new apartments".
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      Yes, that is the objective. We have these rules today for the same reason we had them yesterday: to protect proprietary interests.