3 ms·
The point is those rules weren't made to match the current set of conditions. Driving on the right does.
by 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 agoIf 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 agoI 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 agoYes, that is the objective. We have these rules today for the same reason we had them yesterday: to protect proprietary interests.
- Guvante 3y agoThe problem is the incentives are completely wrong. Not in my backyard doesn't work because we need to do it somewhere. Pretending someone else will deal with the problem is short sighted.