5 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoYour 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)
- nativeit 3y ago> But "urbanists" started de-regulating all the reasonable zoning rules… Citation needed > …that made that system work Citation very much needed
- stickfigure 3y agoWe used to have 40 acres and a mule. Things change.
- supertrope 3y agoFun fact. 40 acres and a mule lasted less than a year. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/the-truth-behind-40-acres-and-a-mule/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cr...
- alostpuppy 3y agoIt always seemed like 40 acres is too much work for one mule
- ndriscoll 3y ago> combined with reasonable zoning rules That's the point though isn't it? People who buy into areas that are zoned SFH do that because they want to live somewhere with that level of density. Rezoning and increasing density is a rugpull with both intangible and direct economic harms.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> dumps lots of new vehicles and new traffic into the neighborhood ... - adds new retail on the ground floor, with more noise This just sounds like conplaining abour presence of other people and services. If so, why is the most valuable real estate not in remote locarions? Why doea everyone value living near other people and services?