5 ms·

>You cannot just violate them, because no one would buy a house on a golf course accepting that it could be turned it into an asbestos refinery the next day. B

>You cannot just violate them, because no one would buy a house on a golf course accepting that it could be turned it into an asbestos refinery the next day. But that's not how it works. People buy a house adjacent to a golf course and then the golf course sells out to a developer who wants to build higher-density housing (your "asbestos refinery" example is ridiculous and hyperbolic, nobody's trying to put dangerous industrial facilities in a residential zone) and then the people who live in houses adjacent to the old golf course complain that they are somehow injured by other property property owners building on their own land, often citing damages to "the view" or something entirely intangible such as "the character of the neighborhood" or "the environment". If they wanted to save the golf course they should have put in a bid when it was up for sale. There's no reason why anybody should have a stake in land they don't own.

ip26 3y ago
There's no reason why anybody should have a stake in land they don't own Except that defies market value in practice. Evaluated in a bubble, every quarter acre of dirt is generally no more or less valuable than any other quarter acre of dirt. Yet we all know that's not how real estate works. A plot of land downtown in a cute walkable neighborhood full of midcentury modern houses is valuable, and people want to live there, in large part because of those things. We haven't really figured out how to reconcile this with absolutist views on private property rights. I see HOA's as a crude attempt to tackle this, whereby residents all agree the neighborhood is better if everyone cleans up their yard, and legally commit to do so.
- welder 3y ago
  It's like gambling. You buy property knowing you can't control it's surroundings. Edit: Unless you're a local politician or well-connected individual. Then you can change laws to preserve your property value like in the article.
- pc86 3y ago
  But markets change, and sometimes people lose when that happens, and you're not due any compensation when that happens. If you invest in tech stocks you'll make a killing most of the time. Sometimes you'll lose half your investment. That's literally the whole point of markets - there's no guarantee, and you don't have damages (in the legal, someone-now-owes-you-something sense) when it goes wrong. You have the right to buy whatever property you want and can afford, but you don't have the right - for the most part - to impose restrictions and covenants on other people's property just to prop your values up, especially without their consent.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Given that, I don't fault homeowners for trying to reduce this risk as much as possible. For many people, a home is the most expensive thing they ever buy, and it makes logical sense for people to try to protect the value of it. Not everyone wants every transaction they do to boil down to bet at a casino. If I could engage in local politics to reduce risk, I am going to do that. I think the asbestos plant is a good analogy. Nobody moves into their home expecting a nuisance to be built next door.
    - pc86 3y ago
      It's a ridiculous analogy because nobody is buying residential property, or property anywhere close to residences, to build industrial processing plants.
      - ip26 3y ago
        That's simply not true. It may not be happening to your friends & family, but it happens frequently. One high profile flash point is oil drilling & facilities, which in Colorado can be built as close to your house as 500 feet.
      - ryandrake 3y ago
        It's an analogy, not an example. Nobody wants industrial processing plants built next door, just like nobody wants a 5 story apartment building built next door. They're both nuisances, at least in rural or sparse suburban neighborhoods.
maxsilver 3y ago
> and then the golf course sells out to a developer who wants to build higher-density housing, and then the people who live in houses nearby complain that they are somehow injured by other property property owners building on their own land They are though. They objectively are impacted. Your new high-rise often does any/all of the following: - change the elevation or the permeability of the ground (in the midwest, this means often dumping higher water levels into nearby properties, causing basements to flood that didn't before). In my home state, often 25 to 40% of a home's finished livable SQFT is in those basements) - dumps lots of new vehicles and new traffic into the neighborhood (that the high-density housing isn't going to build parking for, in their obvious-lie greenwashing attempt to be 'eco-friendly') - adds new retail on the ground floor, with more noise and more traffic (so that the business becomes viable) - increase the costs of all insurance (automobile insurance, homeowners insurance, flood insurance, etc) And of course, the big one: - Dramatically increases the value of the property, immediately driving cost of living up for existing residents, in addition to increasing the housing costs for all residents (yes, even for pre-existing owner-occupants). ----- You can argue that existing residents should just eat all of that, as like, "the cost of living in a society" or somesuch. Because your right, regular people didn't buy up that land too, to prevent the development ahead-of-time. And I get, new housing has to go somewhere, no one is against all new housing. But you can't pretend these effects are "entirely intangible". New development, especially anything that "increases density" has lots of direct short-term real-world observable impacts, and very real costs, passed directly onto each other nearby resident. They aren't crazy to complain about all that, even if they aren't articulate enough to accurately name each effect individually, and instead label the whole thing "the character of the neighborhood" or similar.
- stickfigure 3y ago
  Your continued breathing objectively decreases the amount of oxygen in my environment. At some point you gotta draw some lines, and ownership (combined with reasonable zoning rules) is a pretty good line.
  - maxsilver 3y ago
    > At some point you gotta draw some lines, and ownership (combined with reasonable zoning rules) is a pretty good line. Well, that's what we used to have, to make it all work. You used to trust that if you bought in a neighborhood zoned "R-1", it would mostly stay "R-1" for at least a little while. (same for "PUD-3", and so on) But "urbanists" started de-regulating all the reasonable zoning rules that made that system work, so now no one can trust that the rules would be enforced anymore, which is how you get random citizens reflexively fighting things (and the prevalence of HOAs, as an extra block against it, and so on)
autokad 3y ago
I really wish what ever cohort you are would stop giong on about 'higher density housing'. Thats not what people want, no one wants this. Do you think poor people want to be packed into even smaller denser boxes? We need more houses, not high density apartment flats.
- snake42 3y ago
  That is just not true. I want to (and do) live in high density housing and I would not be considered poor.
  - autokad 3y ago
    then go live in it. there is plenty of it. stop making everyone else have to live that way.
    - supertrope 3y ago
      R1 single family zoning is making everyone have to build housing a certain way.
- surgical_fire 3y ago
  > no one wants this Except the people that do, which is actually quite a lot of people. I prefer living in a house, but I know many people that prefer living in middle-density or even high-density areas.
Solvency 3y ago
All sorts of biologically toxic materials are spewed into the air during demolition and industrial level building. Concrete dust alone is insanely bad to inhale. So, no, I wouldn't be happy for a placid field next to my life home to suddenly become a major development site overnight.
jjav 3y ago
> entirely intangible such as "the character of the neighborhood" or "the environment" There is nothing intangible about the character of the neighborhood (or the environment). Have you ever chosen a place to live? Nearly all the research effort in that decision is about the character of the neighborhood, not the house itself. The house structure in isolation has very little value. That's why you can buy a perfectly functional house for like $10K, when it is located in a place that nobody wants to live in. Nearly all the value comes from the neighborhood it's in and its character. That's what people buy into, much more than the drywalls and roof.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  …which is why none of that value should really accrue to the homeowner. It’s a collective product, not their own.
  - jjav 3y ago
    I'm trying to interpret how this comment relates to the thread above but not clear to me. I was stating that the "character of a neighborhood" is a very tangible thing that has value to people (I don't mean value in dollars, but value in that they enjoy it and want to live there). That character attracted them to move there. So it is value that can be destroyed by greatly changing the character. There's no value accruing here, it's value being destroyed. For example I know of a few people who moved to a quiet street, very walkable and had nearly zero traffic so it was great for kids & pets and strolling around. A couple decades later that quiet no-traffic street had turned into a six lane avenue, with their front lawns right on the edge of that. The character of the neighborhood sure was changed and its value was destroyed to everyone who had chosen to live there precisely because it was quiet and had no traffic.
coding123 3y ago
replace asbestos refinery with prisons, hospitals (yes some people don't want to hear ambulances launch every 20 minutes, insane asylum (I lived next to one, screaming all day long).

ip26 3y ago

There's no reason why anybody should have a stake in land they don't own Except that defies market value in practice. Evaluated in a bubble, every quarter acre of dirt is generally no more or less valuable than any other quarter acre of dirt. Yet we all know that's not how real estate works. A plot of land downtown in a cute walkable neighborhood full of midcentury modern houses is valuable, and people want to live there, in large part because of those things. We haven't really figured out how to reconcile this with absolutist views on private property rights. I see HOA's as a crude attempt to tackle this, whereby residents all agree the neighborhood is better if everyone cleans up their yard, and legally commit to do so.

welder 3y ago
It's like gambling. You buy property knowing you can't control it's surroundings. Edit: Unless you're a local politician or well-connected individual. Then you can change laws to preserve your property value like in the article.
pc86 3y ago
But markets change, and sometimes people lose when that happens, and you're not due any compensation when that happens. If you invest in tech stocks you'll make a killing most of the time. Sometimes you'll lose half your investment. That's literally the whole point of markets - there's no guarantee, and you don't have damages (in the legal, someone-now-owes-you-something sense) when it goes wrong. You have the right to buy whatever property you want and can afford, but you don't have the right - for the most part - to impose restrictions and covenants on other people's property just to prop your values up, especially without their consent.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Given that, I don't fault homeowners for trying to reduce this risk as much as possible. For many people, a home is the most expensive thing they ever buy, and it makes logical sense for people to try to protect the value of it. Not everyone wants every transaction they do to boil down to bet at a casino. If I could engage in local politics to reduce risk, I am going to do that. I think the asbestos plant is a good analogy. Nobody moves into their home expecting a nuisance to be built next door.
  - pc86 3y ago
    It's a ridiculous analogy because nobody is buying residential property, or property anywhere close to residences, to build industrial processing plants.
    - ip26 3y ago
      That's simply not true. It may not be happening to your friends & family, but it happens frequently. One high profile flash point is oil drilling & facilities, which in Colorado can be built as close to your house as 500 feet.
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      It's an analogy, not an example. Nobody wants industrial processing plants built next door, just like nobody wants a 5 story apartment building built next door. They're both nuisances, at least in rural or sparse suburban neighborhoods.

maxsilver 3y ago

> and then the golf course sells out to a developer who wants to build higher-density housing, and then the people who live in houses nearby complain that they are somehow injured by other property property owners building on their own land They are though. They objectively are impacted. Your new high-rise often does any/all of the following: - change the elevation or the permeability of the ground (in the midwest, this means often dumping higher water levels into nearby properties, causing basements to flood that didn't before). In my home state, often 25 to 40% of a home's finished livable SQFT is in those basements) - dumps lots of new vehicles and new traffic into the neighborhood (that the high-density housing isn't going to build parking for, in their obvious-lie greenwashing attempt to be 'eco-friendly') - adds new retail on the ground floor, with more noise and more traffic (so that the business becomes viable) - increase the costs of all insurance (automobile insurance, homeowners insurance, flood insurance, etc) And of course, the big one: - Dramatically increases the value of the property, immediately driving cost of living up for existing residents, in addition to increasing the housing costs for all residents (yes, even for pre-existing owner-occupants). ----- You can argue that existing residents should just eat all of that, as like, "the cost of living in a society" or somesuch. Because your right, regular people didn't buy up that land too, to prevent the development ahead-of-time. And I get, new housing has to go somewhere, no one is against all new housing. But you can't pretend these effects are "entirely intangible". New development, especially anything that "increases density" has lots of direct short-term real-world observable impacts, and very real costs, passed directly onto each other nearby resident. They aren't crazy to complain about all that, even if they aren't articulate enough to accurately name each effect individually, and instead label the whole thing "the character of the neighborhood" or similar.

stickfigure 3y ago
Your continued breathing objectively decreases the amount of oxygen in my environment. At some point you gotta draw some lines, and ownership (combined with reasonable zoning rules) is a pretty good line.
- maxsilver 3y ago
  > At some point you gotta draw some lines, and ownership (combined with reasonable zoning rules) is a pretty good line. Well, that's what we used to have, to make it all work. You used to trust that if you bought in a neighborhood zoned "R-1", it would mostly stay "R-1" for at least a little while. (same for "PUD-3", and so on) But "urbanists" started de-regulating all the reasonable zoning rules that made that system work, so now no one can trust that the rules would be enforced anymore, which is how you get random citizens reflexively fighting things (and the prevalence of HOAs, as an extra block against it, and so on)

autokad 3y ago

I really wish what ever cohort you are would stop giong on about 'higher density housing'. Thats not what people want, no one wants this. Do you think poor people want to be packed into even smaller denser boxes? We need more houses, not high density apartment flats.

snake42 3y ago
That is just not true. I want to (and do) live in high density housing and I would not be considered poor.
- autokad 3y ago
  then go live in it. there is plenty of it. stop making everyone else have to live that way.
  - supertrope 3y ago
    R1 single family zoning is making everyone have to build housing a certain way.
surgical_fire 3y ago
> no one wants this Except the people that do, which is actually quite a lot of people. I prefer living in a house, but I know many people that prefer living in middle-density or even high-density areas.

Solvency 3y ago

All sorts of biologically toxic materials are spewed into the air during demolition and industrial level building. Concrete dust alone is insanely bad to inhale. So, no, I wouldn't be happy for a placid field next to my life home to suddenly become a major development site overnight.

jjav 3y ago

> entirely intangible such as "the character of the neighborhood" or "the environment" There is nothing intangible about the character of the neighborhood (or the environment). Have you ever chosen a place to live? Nearly all the research effort in that decision is about the character of the neighborhood, not the house itself. The house structure in isolation has very little value. That's why you can buy a perfectly functional house for like $10K, when it is located in a place that nobody wants to live in. Nearly all the value comes from the neighborhood it's in and its character. That's what people buy into, much more than the drywalls and roof.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
…which is why none of that value should really accrue to the homeowner. It’s a collective product, not their own.
- jjav 3y ago
  I'm trying to interpret how this comment relates to the thread above but not clear to me. I was stating that the "character of a neighborhood" is a very tangible thing that has value to people (I don't mean value in dollars, but value in that they enjoy it and want to live there). That character attracted them to move there. So it is value that can be destroyed by greatly changing the character. There's no value accruing here, it's value being destroyed. For example I know of a few people who moved to a quiet street, very walkable and had nearly zero traffic so it was great for kids & pets and strolling around. A couple decades later that quiet no-traffic street had turned into a six lane avenue, with their front lawns right on the edge of that. The character of the neighborhood sure was changed and its value was destroyed to everyone who had chosen to live there precisely because it was quiet and had no traffic.

coding123 3y ago

replace asbestos refinery with prisons, hospitals (yes some people don't want to hear ambulances launch every 20 minutes, insane asylum (I lived next to one, screaming all day long).