5 ms·

>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 residenti

>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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.
    - pandaman 3y ago
      >One is, how do you compare the values of e.g. pollution vs. job creation? My question exactly. Ethical calculus you propose should be able to do that in a manner that won't cause affected people to literally tar and feather you in the best case. >The other is, there is a cartel charging monopoly rents because there is a law inhibiting anyone new from entering the market. That's like, your opinion. Fact is that you can build dense housing in any big city in the US. No cartel and no laws forbid it. The argument of "but I want an apartment tower right THERE and it's zoned SFH!!!1!" could as well be applied to SFH and with the same veracity you could repeat that "the law forbids building SFHs" because there are lots zoned AG or industrial where you cannot build a SFH.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > That's like, your opinion. That's what the law says. You own a piece of property, you want to get into the market by building more housing on it than currently exists, you can't. > Fact is that you can build dense housing in any big city in the US. No cartel and no laws forbid it. Explicitly prohibiting something and purposely using the law to render it uneconomical are de facto equivalent. > The argument of "but I want an apartment tower right THERE and it's zoned SFH!!!1!" could as well be applied to SFH and with the same veracity you could repeat that "the law forbids building SFHs" because there are lots zoned AG or industrial where you cannot build a SFH. Okay, so let's do that too. There is no good reason to prohibit single family homes in the most permissively zoned areas -- maybe the agriculture or industrial workers would prefer a shorter commute. But also, this is often already the case. The farmer is allowed to build a farm house. There is no valid reason to prohibit it. It's just not going to happen very often whether you prohibit it or not because there is no demand for a SFH development in the middle of a large block of farmland or a bunch of warehouses and factories.
        pandaman 3y ago
        >That's what the law says. Which law says there is a landlord cartel and building apartments is illegal? We both know there is no such law. >You own a piece of property, you want to get into the market by building more housing on it than currently exists, you can't. Is this also in some law? Which one, please be specific. How come people get in and out leasing market all the time? An apartment building near where I live changed ownership recently, I would appreciate the exact law you are referring to, this could be a crime in progress.

AnthonyMouse 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.
  - pandaman 3y ago
    >One is, how do you compare the values of e.g. pollution vs. job creation? My question exactly. Ethical calculus you propose should be able to do that in a manner that won't cause affected people to literally tar and feather you in the best case. >The other is, there is a cartel charging monopoly rents because there is a law inhibiting anyone new from entering the market. That's like, your opinion. Fact is that you can build dense housing in any big city in the US. No cartel and no laws forbid it. The argument of "but I want an apartment tower right THERE and it's zoned SFH!!!1!" could as well be applied to SFH and with the same veracity you could repeat that "the law forbids building SFHs" because there are lots zoned AG or industrial where you cannot build a SFH.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > That's like, your opinion. That's what the law says. You own a piece of property, you want to get into the market by building more housing on it than currently exists, you can't. > Fact is that you can build dense housing in any big city in the US. No cartel and no laws forbid it. Explicitly prohibiting something and purposely using the law to render it uneconomical are de facto equivalent. > The argument of "but I want an apartment tower right THERE and it's zoned SFH!!!1!" could as well be applied to SFH and with the same veracity you could repeat that "the law forbids building SFHs" because there are lots zoned AG or industrial where you cannot build a SFH. Okay, so let's do that too. There is no good reason to prohibit single family homes in the most permissively zoned areas -- maybe the agriculture or industrial workers would prefer a shorter commute. But also, this is often already the case. The farmer is allowed to build a farm house. There is no valid reason to prohibit it. It's just not going to happen very often whether you prohibit it or not because there is no demand for a SFH development in the middle of a large block of farmland or a bunch of warehouses and factories.
      - pandaman 3y ago
        >That's what the law says. Which law says there is a landlord cartel and building apartments is illegal? We both know there is no such law. >You own a piece of property, you want to get into the market by building more housing on it than currently exists, you can't. Is this also in some law? Which one, please be specific. How come people get in and out leasing market all the time? An apartment building near where I live changed ownership recently, I would appreciate the exact law you are referring to, this could be a crime in progress.