4 ms·

> 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 somewh

> 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.

pc86 3y ago
That doesn't mean that zoning can never change, or that someone is suddenly due a 6-figure check because land they don't own has been rezoned to allow people to live on what was once a patch of grass. "Rugpull" implies that they were told or under the impression it would always be SFH and they'd have the ability to deny its change unilaterally, which is not and has never been the case. If you live in a SFH in a subdivision on a quiet road, next to a large piece of undeveloped land, that's desirable property. But the fact that it's desirable now doesn't guarantee it will be desirable at any point in the future, and you don't have any say in what happens to that undeveloped land unless you own it.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  Nothing in life is certain. When they buy, the law says you can't build more densely in that area. Obviously the law can change, but that's about as close to "always" as you can get. Similarly, society could decide to do away with land ownership altogether without compensation, so they take a risk paying for ownership. Naturally, they'll be against changing the law in ways that harm them. That six figure check might not be so exciting when it means they have to pay transaction costs (~10%) and transfer taxes. Hopefully they don't also have capital gains too (the nominal gain isn't much comfort when they need to find a similarly priced new home; capital gains on housing is mostly a tax on avoiding inflation). Hopefully they aren't also seeing an increase in mortgage rates if they need one. Then they need to find somewhere new to live, probably in an entirely new city (or state) to find somewhere with the zoning they wanted still in place. This destroys social connections and probably requires finding new work, on top of the move itself and the difficulty picking out somewhere to live in an unfamiliar area. If they try to instead stick it out, increased property taxes might bleed them out until they're at a net loss and are forced to move. So yeah of course people who don't want high development near them and picked somewhere to live with regulations against it will vote to preserve those regulations. Conversely, speculators and developers know when they buy property that is is zoned not to allow what they want, but they take a gamble on their ability to change zoning.
stickfigure 3y ago
When you buy property you accept that the community might change zoning rules. That's the de-facto social contract. There's no rugpull; if you didn't understand this when you made the purchase, you made a mistake.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  Any society can change the rules at any time. We could go back to don't-ask-don't-tell with a future government, screwing over all of the openly gay service members. Or a future government could repeal the fifth amendment (or expand "civil forfeiture" i.e. theft). Society changing the rules is pulling the rug. It's not like there's somewhere you can go where the rules can't be changed to avoid that risk. The best you can do is... try to minimize how much society is around you so you can be more selective about who you do live around and hope they'll share your values. i.e. avoid density. And stay out of California since they'll make statewide changes to solve city problems.
supertrope 3y ago
When the land appreciates enough there is no economic harm. If the land reaches $1 million per acre, a developer might want to build a triplex, townhouses, quadplex, etc. and buy you out bagging the owner a nice profit. However local zoning usually forbids upzoning making this productive activity that can ease the housing shortage literally illegal.

pc86 3y ago

That doesn't mean that zoning can never change, or that someone is suddenly due a 6-figure check because land they don't own has been rezoned to allow people to live on what was once a patch of grass. "Rugpull" implies that they were told or under the impression it would always be SFH and they'd have the ability to deny its change unilaterally, which is not and has never been the case. If you live in a SFH in a subdivision on a quiet road, next to a large piece of undeveloped land, that's desirable property. But the fact that it's desirable now doesn't guarantee it will be desirable at any point in the future, and you don't have any say in what happens to that undeveloped land unless you own it.

ndriscoll 3y ago
Nothing in life is certain. When they buy, the law says you can't build more densely in that area. Obviously the law can change, but that's about as close to "always" as you can get. Similarly, society could decide to do away with land ownership altogether without compensation, so they take a risk paying for ownership. Naturally, they'll be against changing the law in ways that harm them. That six figure check might not be so exciting when it means they have to pay transaction costs (~10%) and transfer taxes. Hopefully they don't also have capital gains too (the nominal gain isn't much comfort when they need to find a similarly priced new home; capital gains on housing is mostly a tax on avoiding inflation). Hopefully they aren't also seeing an increase in mortgage rates if they need one. Then they need to find somewhere new to live, probably in an entirely new city (or state) to find somewhere with the zoning they wanted still in place. This destroys social connections and probably requires finding new work, on top of the move itself and the difficulty picking out somewhere to live in an unfamiliar area. If they try to instead stick it out, increased property taxes might bleed them out until they're at a net loss and are forced to move. So yeah of course people who don't want high development near them and picked somewhere to live with regulations against it will vote to preserve those regulations. Conversely, speculators and developers know when they buy property that is is zoned not to allow what they want, but they take a gamble on their ability to change zoning.

stickfigure 3y ago

When you buy property you accept that the community might change zoning rules. That's the de-facto social contract. There's no rugpull; if you didn't understand this when you made the purchase, you made a mistake.

ndriscoll 3y ago
Any society can change the rules at any time. We could go back to don't-ask-don't-tell with a future government, screwing over all of the openly gay service members. Or a future government could repeal the fifth amendment (or expand "civil forfeiture" i.e. theft). Society changing the rules is pulling the rug. It's not like there's somewhere you can go where the rules can't be changed to avoid that risk. The best you can do is... try to minimize how much society is around you so you can be more selective about who you do live around and hope they'll share your values. i.e. avoid density. And stay out of California since they'll make statewide changes to solve city problems.

supertrope 3y ago

When the land appreciates enough there is no economic harm. If the land reaches $1 million per acre, a developer might want to build a triplex, townhouses, quadplex, etc. and buy you out bagging the owner a nice profit. However local zoning usually forbids upzoning making this productive activity that can ease the housing shortage literally illegal.