5 ms·

But that's a silly example, because proving net-harm from industrial uses across from residential is easy. Proving net-harm from denser residential is generally

But that's a silly example, because proving net-harm from industrial uses across from residential is easy. Proving net-harm from denser residential is generally an exercise in NIMBY-ism that slides very smoothly into classism and racism about who would live in those denser units. Residents coming together to decide on rules by which they are governed can get us public lynching too. It doesn't mean it's good governance.

koolba 2y ago
The example is meant to be silly to demonstrate that there’s clearly some limit of what is acceptable and it’s the stricter intersection of every level of government within the bounds of what’s constitutional. One of those levels is the local government consisting of the people that already live in a municipality. There’s no inherent right, whether constitutionally granted or innately, for you to build whatever you’d like, wherever you’d like. Just like I can’t go build a shack in the middle of NYC’s Central Park. Framing it as racism or classism is a sign that you don’t have any other valid arguments. It’s literally just an excuse for a land grab!
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > The example is meant to be silly to demonstrate that there’s clearly some limit of what is acceptable But you can use sensible rules for this like "does this impose a significant negative externality" that neatly allow you to exclude a landfill from a residential area but not a new residential building. > and it’s the stricter intersection of every level of government within the bounds of what’s constitutional. The entire question is what those laws should be. For example, should states or federal lawmakers prevent towns from imposing restrictive zoning rules, as permitted under their various constitutions? > There’s no inherent right, whether constitutionally granted or innately, for you to build whatever you’d like, wherever you’d like. Just like I can’t go build a shack in the middle of NYC’s Central Park. You can't go build a shack in Central Park because you don't own the land in Central Park. The issue here is when you do own the land and all you want to do is build housing during a housing shortage. > Framing it as racism or classism is a sign that you don’t have any other valid arguments. Only if you don't present any other valid arguments. Also, "this is racism or classism" can be a valid argument when it is in fact racism or classism. Just because it's massively overused doesn't mean it's never actually true. > It’s literally just an excuse for a land grab! The proposal does not involve the use of eminent domain.
  - pandaman 2y ago
    >But you can use sensible rules for this like "does this impose a significant negative externality" that neatly allow you to exclude a landfill from a residential area but not a new residential building. This is exactly what the planning commissions use. Apparently the separation is not as neat as you believe.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      Oh, I see the problem. It's implied that in order to be prohibited, a negative externality should be a net harm. For example, you need to prohibit someone from taking a $1 gain by causing $10 in harm to someone else, causing a net loss of $9 to society. Compare: You are prohibited from manufacturing electric cars by dumping heavy metals in the river, because that poisons people which causes more harm than disposing of them properly, vs. you are prohibited from manufacturing electric cars because it would reduce the profits of Exxon, ICE automakers and mechanics through increased competition and efficiency, which is not a net harm at all because it creates a countervailing benefit to consumers in a similar amount. "It makes housing more affordable" is not a net harm.
      - pandaman 2y ago
        Many people tried to come up with an ethical calculus through history, and while themselves believed their systems were rational and common sense, other people invariably rejected those.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        You're talking about something else entirely. One is, how do you compare the values of e.g. pollution vs. job creation? What's the monetary value of a human life? You can try to make an estimate but there is no objective answer or unambiguous line. The other is, there is a cartel charging monopoly rents because there is a law inhibiting anyone new from entering the market. There is a proposal to get rid of the law. By any plausible estimation the net benefits of removing the law are positive, but the cartel claims they'd be harmed because they couldn't charge monopoly rents anymore and then they'd make less money. This is not the same problem; this is the cartel objectively wanting to create a net loss for the general public in exchange for a net gain for themselves only.

koolba 2y ago

The example is meant to be silly to demonstrate that there’s clearly some limit of what is acceptable and it’s the stricter intersection of every level of government within the bounds of what’s constitutional. One of those levels is the local government consisting of the people that already live in a municipality. There’s no inherent right, whether constitutionally granted or innately, for you to build whatever you’d like, wherever you’d like. Just like I can’t go build a shack in the middle of NYC’s Central Park. Framing it as racism or classism is a sign that you don’t have any other valid arguments. It’s literally just an excuse for a land grab!

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> The example is meant to be silly to demonstrate that there’s clearly some limit of what is acceptable But you can use sensible rules for this like "does this impose a significant negative externality" that neatly allow you to exclude a landfill from a residential area but not a new residential building. > and it’s the stricter intersection of every level of government within the bounds of what’s constitutional. The entire question is what those laws should be. For example, should states or federal lawmakers prevent towns from imposing restrictive zoning rules, as permitted under their various constitutions? > There’s no inherent right, whether constitutionally granted or innately, for you to build whatever you’d like, wherever you’d like. Just like I can’t go build a shack in the middle of NYC’s Central Park. You can't go build a shack in Central Park because you don't own the land in Central Park. The issue here is when you do own the land and all you want to do is build housing during a housing shortage. > Framing it as racism or classism is a sign that you don’t have any other valid arguments. Only if you don't present any other valid arguments. Also, "this is racism or classism" can be a valid argument when it is in fact racism or classism. Just because it's massively overused doesn't mean it's never actually true. > It’s literally just an excuse for a land grab! The proposal does not involve the use of eminent domain.
- pandaman 2y ago
  >But you can use sensible rules for this like "does this impose a significant negative externality" that neatly allow you to exclude a landfill from a residential area but not a new residential building. This is exactly what the planning commissions use. Apparently the separation is not as neat as you believe.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Oh, I see the problem. It's implied that in order to be prohibited, a negative externality should be a net harm. For example, you need to prohibit someone from taking a $1 gain by causing $10 in harm to someone else, causing a net loss of $9 to society. Compare: You are prohibited from manufacturing electric cars by dumping heavy metals in the river, because that poisons people which causes more harm than disposing of them properly, vs. you are prohibited from manufacturing electric cars because it would reduce the profits of Exxon, ICE automakers and mechanics through increased competition and efficiency, which is not a net harm at all because it creates a countervailing benefit to consumers in a similar amount. "It makes housing more affordable" is not a net harm.
    - pandaman 2y ago
      Many people tried to come up with an ethical calculus through history, and while themselves believed their systems were rational and common sense, other people invariably rejected those.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        You're talking about something else entirely. One is, how do you compare the values of e.g. pollution vs. job creation? What's the monetary value of a human life? You can try to make an estimate but there is no objective answer or unambiguous line. The other is, there is a cartel charging monopoly rents because there is a law inhibiting anyone new from entering the market. There is a proposal to get rid of the law. By any plausible estimation the net benefits of removing the law are positive, but the cartel claims they'd be harmed because they couldn't charge monopoly rents anymore and then they'd make less money. This is not the same problem; this is the cartel objectively wanting to create a net loss for the general public in exchange for a net gain for themselves only.