8 ms·

Property owners absolutely are entitled to stop efforts around them to increase housing supply or density, and I say this as someone who also has done similar w

by bpt3 1y ago

Property owners absolutely are entitled to stop efforts around them to increase housing supply or density, and I say this as someone who also has done similar work to you. If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right, even if other people who can't afford to live there or would just like to see higher density would really like them to change their mind.

toomuchtodo 1y ago
> If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right This is an opinion, not a right codified in statute, and state laws can be enacted to override local planning ability to prevent upzoning. People who live in their community are entitled to affordable housing (again, my opinion, maybe not yours). Property owners leave, property owners die; the path to success is to simply continue to grind against the nimby machine. https://www.yimbylaw.org/ https://www.yimbylaw.org/
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  I disagree that people are entitled to affordable housing where they desire to live. There are neighborhoods I could not afford to live in, and I am not entitled to live there. I live where I can afford, and this is the case up and down the market. If I want to live in some community, it's up to me to be able to afford it. That said, if I can afford to buy property and want to build higher-density lower-cost rental housing on it, that should generally be my right as well.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    The issue isn't that some communities are expensive. The issue is the deliberate engineering of extra housing expense extrinsic to the market itself using the force of law, which is a capability home rule grants exclusionary communities if not policed carefully.
- bpt3 1y ago
  It's an inherent right, otherwise CA wouldn't have to pass laws to override it (which is an overreach IMO). No one is entitled to affordable housing in any specific location.
TimorousBestie 1y ago
> If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right I’d be interested as to any country that recognizes this as an explicit right.
- bpt3 1y ago
  Explicit? Probably not. But zoning is handled at the local level traditionally.
tptacek 1y ago
No it isn't.
- bpt3 1y ago
  Well consider me convinced by your thoughtful response! I guess that overrides centuries of precedent.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    There's been centuries of precedent for all sorts of things we'd recoil from now.
    - bpt3 1y ago
      A community of SFH residences makes you recoil? You're an extreme minority if so, which makes this no better than your initial statement.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
ProfessorLayton 1y ago
>If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right, even if other people who can't afford to live there or would just like to see higher density would really like them to change their mind. The only reasonable way for them to be entitled to prevent density is for them to own the property and not build anything. >If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right, even if other people who can't afford to live there or would just like to see higher density would really like them to change their mind. Well then those people should buy the land and keep it low density. Can't afford it? Too bad. Pro-housing folks aren't trying to force people to do something with their property, it's the other way around.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  Indeed, they want the authority over the land without buying or otherwise having to expend finances to control the land.
  - bpt3 1y ago
    That's not what I'm talking about at all. Zoning regulations should reflect the desires of a community, and there's no inherent reason they can't be more restrictive than yimbys would like.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - ratelimitsteve 1y ago
      you used the word "entitled" though, and that has a specific meaning. why would nimbys be "entitled" to stop high density housing but yimbys not be "entitled" to do it? this contradiction resolves itself very neatly in a system where yimbys get to do what they want with their property and nimbys get to do what they want with theirs. It only gets complex when one person wants complete control of their property and also partial control over someone else's, and they dress up their own personal best interest as "the desires of the community".

by bpt3 1y ago

toomuchtodo 1y ago

> If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right This is an opinion, not a right codified in statute, and state laws can be enacted to override local planning ability to prevent upzoning. People who live in their community are entitled to affordable housing (again, my opinion, maybe not yours). Property owners leave, property owners die; the path to success is to simply continue to grind against the nimby machine. https://www.yimbylaw.org/ https://www.yimbylaw.org/

SoftTalker 1y ago
I disagree that people are entitled to affordable housing where they desire to live. There are neighborhoods I could not afford to live in, and I am not entitled to live there. I live where I can afford, and this is the case up and down the market. If I want to live in some community, it's up to me to be able to afford it. That said, if I can afford to buy property and want to build higher-density lower-cost rental housing on it, that should generally be my right as well.
- tptacek 1y ago
  The issue isn't that some communities are expensive. The issue is the deliberate engineering of extra housing expense extrinsic to the market itself using the force of law, which is a capability home rule grants exclusionary communities if not policed carefully.
bpt3 1y ago
It's an inherent right, otherwise CA wouldn't have to pass laws to override it (which is an overreach IMO). No one is entitled to affordable housing in any specific location.

TimorousBestie 1y ago

> If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right I’d be interested as to any country that recognizes this as an explicit right.

bpt3 1y ago
Explicit? Probably not. But zoning is handled at the local level traditionally.

tptacek 1y ago

No it isn't.

bpt3 1y ago
Well consider me convinced by your thoughtful response! I guess that overrides centuries of precedent.
- tptacek 1y ago
  There's been centuries of precedent for all sorts of things we'd recoil from now.
  - bpt3 1y ago
    A community of SFH residences makes you recoil? You're an extreme minority if so, which makes this no better than your initial statement.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]

ProfessorLayton 1y ago

>If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right, even if other people who can't afford to live there or would just like to see higher density would really like them to change their mind. The only reasonable way for them to be entitled to prevent density is for them to own the property and not build anything. >If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right, even if other people who can't afford to live there or would just like to see higher density would really like them to change their mind. Well then those people should buy the land and keep it low density. Can't afford it? Too bad. Pro-housing folks aren't trying to force people to do something with their property, it's the other way around.

toomuchtodo 1y ago
Indeed, they want the authority over the land without buying or otherwise having to expend finances to control the land.
- bpt3 1y ago
  That's not what I'm talking about at all. Zoning regulations should reflect the desires of a community, and there's no inherent reason they can't be more restrictive than yimbys would like.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - ratelimitsteve 1y ago
    you used the word "entitled" though, and that has a specific meaning. why would nimbys be "entitled" to stop high density housing but yimbys not be "entitled" to do it? this contradiction resolves itself very neatly in a system where yimbys get to do what they want with their property and nimbys get to do what they want with theirs. It only gets complex when one person wants complete control of their property and also partial control over someone else's, and they dress up their own personal best interest as "the desires of the community".