3 ms·

> I will once again float that zoning should be federalized, and everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right. If you have a probl

by tivert 3y ago

> I will once again float that zoning should be federalized, and everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right. If you have a problem with what I want to put on my land, buy my land. I'm not responsible for your property value. That's unreasonable. What if I'm your neighbor and want to turn my land into a toxic waste dump and burn tires for heat and/or fun? I'm not responsible for your property value, right? Communities are actual things. Pretending like they're not to "solve" one problem just means you'll get other problems.

arcticbull 3y ago
> That's unreasonable. What if I'm your neighbor and want to turn my land into a toxic waste dumb and burn tires for heat and/or fun? I'm not responsible for your property value, right? There is plenty of prior art that draws exactly the right compromises. For example Houston as I mentioned, and Japan.
- tivert 3y ago
  >> That's unreasonable. What if I'm your neighbor and want to turn my land into a toxic waste dumb and burn tires for heat and/or fun? I'm not responsible for your property value, right? > Zoning should be residential, commercial and industrial. Whatever happened to "everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right. If you have a problem with what I want to put on my land, buy my land. I'm not responsible for your property value." It seems like that got abandoned fast.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    > Whatever happened to "everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right?" An obviously tortured reading of what I was arguing for, so I edited it for clarity. Hope that helps. I suspect however that you'd find burning tires in an urban area to run afoul not of zoning rules but of the EPA.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > An obviously tortured reading of what I was arguing for, so I edited it for clarity. Hope that helps. By "tortured reading" do you mean "literal and straightforward" reading?
      - arcticbull 3y ago
        What is it that has you so married to restricting what other people can do on their property? Especially to the extent that you would engage in bad faith arguments? Are you trying to keep people out of your neighborhood, or are you trying to keep housing unaffordable? Have you decided that, entirely arbitrarily, the neighborhood is good now and should never change? Generally curious as to your animus. Because again the land uses you suggested aren't a function of zoning rules at all. They're a straw man.
        tivert 3y ago
        > What is it that has you so married to restricting what other people can do on their property? Externalities, a thing that exists. Also, a recognition that communities are real things that can and should have rights of their own, independent of the individuals that make them up. > Especially to the extent that you would engage in bad faith arguments? You've literally said "everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right," and it's not bad faith to test your commitment to that. > Are you trying to keep people out of your neighborhood, or are you trying to keep housing unaffordable? Have you decided that, entirely arbitrarily, the neighborhood is good now and should never change? Generally curious as to your animus. Casting aspersions like that isn't good faith.
epistasis 3y ago
If somebody considers housing to be toxic waste, may I suggest that they live somewhere that doesn't have huge demand? Its fundamentally greedy and unfair to deny lots of people something they would like, without just compensation to all the people that would like to live in Hawaii (or any other high demand area) Land should be for all, not for the few. If you want a lot of land, there's a lot of it out there, you just need to go where there are few people. If you want a lot of land where other people also want a lot of land, you need to pay everybody else for that excessive consumption.

by tivert 3y ago

arcticbull 3y ago

> That's unreasonable. What if I'm your neighbor and want to turn my land into a toxic waste dumb and burn tires for heat and/or fun? I'm not responsible for your property value, right? There is plenty of prior art that draws exactly the right compromises. For example Houston as I mentioned, and Japan.

tivert 3y ago
>> That's unreasonable. What if I'm your neighbor and want to turn my land into a toxic waste dumb and burn tires for heat and/or fun? I'm not responsible for your property value, right? > Zoning should be residential, commercial and industrial. Whatever happened to "everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right. If you have a problem with what I want to put on my land, buy my land. I'm not responsible for your property value." It seems like that got abandoned fast.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  > Whatever happened to "everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right?" An obviously tortured reading of what I was arguing for, so I edited it for clarity. Hope that helps. I suspect however that you'd find burning tires in an urban area to run afoul not of zoning rules but of the EPA.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > An obviously tortured reading of what I was arguing for, so I edited it for clarity. Hope that helps. By "tortured reading" do you mean "literal and straightforward" reading?
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      What is it that has you so married to restricting what other people can do on their property? Especially to the extent that you would engage in bad faith arguments? Are you trying to keep people out of your neighborhood, or are you trying to keep housing unaffordable? Have you decided that, entirely arbitrarily, the neighborhood is good now and should never change? Generally curious as to your animus. Because again the land uses you suggested aren't a function of zoning rules at all. They're a straw man.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > What is it that has you so married to restricting what other people can do on their property? Externalities, a thing that exists. Also, a recognition that communities are real things that can and should have rights of their own, independent of the individuals that make them up. > Especially to the extent that you would engage in bad faith arguments? You've literally said "everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right," and it's not bad faith to test your commitment to that. > Are you trying to keep people out of your neighborhood, or are you trying to keep housing unaffordable? Have you decided that, entirely arbitrarily, the neighborhood is good now and should never change? Generally curious as to your animus. Casting aspersions like that isn't good faith.

epistasis 3y ago

If somebody considers housing to be toxic waste, may I suggest that they live somewhere that doesn't have huge demand? Its fundamentally greedy and unfair to deny lots of people something they would like, without just compensation to all the people that would like to live in Hawaii (or any other high demand area) Land should be for all, not for the few. If you want a lot of land, there's a lot of it out there, you just need to go where there are few people. If you want a lot of land where other people also want a lot of land, you need to pay everybody else for that excessive consumption.