7 ms·

>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 woul

>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".
    - ndriscoll 1y ago
      Because "yimby"s go to higher government to force localities to adopt rules they vote against, i.e. they get their way with authoritarian policies that apply outside of "their backyard". Some even think there should be national laws! They want their policies applied to essentially an entire continent. Nimbys typically don't care about things that are not part of their locality. San Francisco wants giant skyscrapers? Cool, none in my city, thanks. That's why we chose to live in an area that bans high density. From what I've seen the actual policies being pushed by "yimbys" seem much closer to yiyby.
      - danaris 1y ago
        And this is because individual property rights must not be sacrosanct in a civilized society. We already have a number of rules of what you can and can't do with your private property that I think most people agree on. You can't build a slaughterhouse right in the middle of a residential area. You can't dump your garbage into the water flowing through your property. Etc. Those are rules we all agree on because they have immediate and very visible primary effects. The things we're talking about now are less visible secondary effects, but they're still very real. The ability of our entire society to be able to securely and affordably house all its members is a much stronger imperative than the ability of people in any particular area to have nice views, or neighbors who all share the same socioeconomic class/skin color/native language as them.
        immibis 1y ago
        We should probably try to keep them to a minimum though, lest we stifle innovation. You wouldn't want to stifle innovation, would you? Or inadvertently destroy shareholder value?
      - triceratops 1y ago
        > Nimbys typically don't care about things that are not part of their locality Yimbys go even smaller. They don't care about things that are not in their backyard. You want an apartment building on your land? Cool, none on my land thanks. If you care about freedom, go with yimbys. The nimbys are the ones putting encumbrances on your property.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    > Zoning regulations should reflect the desires of a community The community can express its desires by building whatever kind of housing they want on their property. What you're talking about is my property having to reflect the desires of the rest of the community.
    - bpt3 1y ago
      No, the existing community made decisions that already exist. Potential new residents should have no say, and actual new residents knew what they were before they purchased the property.
  - immibis 1y ago
    The whole theoretical conception of property rights is that a property right is the right to control what happens on your property, which implies you don't have the right to control what happens on other people's property, because that right belongs to other people. You can't eat your cake and have it. If you want property to be a neighbourhood thing then you should also be required to let the benefits of your own property accrue to your whole neighbourhood and not just yourself. So no tall fences for example. How come everyone else should have to do what you want, but you shouldn't have to do what everyone else wants?
    - ndriscoll 1y ago
      My neighborhood does in fact ban any kind of front yard fence, and I'd have to check but the only backyard fences I recall seeing are those around pools, which are legally required for child safety reasons.
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    This is just a tragedy of the commons situation. Obviously, every single existing property owner wants it to stop right now. Because more housing means more supply, means less money for them. They naturally want to pull the ladder up. But if you just let them, then there's 0 new homes being built in the US. And then the economy implodes. We have to toe a line necessarily. If you just allow the tragedy of the commons to happen 100%, then everyone loses. Everyone, including those who benefit. Its like feudalism. Feudalism seems like a fantastic idea if you're a feudal lord. But... Its actually not. No, you lose too. Imagine how much richer those feudal lords could have been had they not impeded the progress of Europe for hundreds of years.
    - BirdieNZ 1y ago
      > Obviously, every single existing property owner wants it to stop right now. Because more housing means more supply, means less money for them. Upzoning actually increases land values, because it gives you the option to develop your land into a higher-productivity use (and hence higher potential rents). NIMBYs in my observation tend to be anti-change; they bought with the neighbourhood a particular way and want it to stay that way. Upzoning brings in a change in the vibe and demographic that they don't want.
      - bpt3 1y ago
        Exactly. Most people don't buy a home with the hope that the surroundings will change drastically. And of course is there is a change for the better, the same people who complain about about NIMBYs will complain about gentrification.
  - wqaatwt 1y ago
    Severely limiting the property rights of anyone owning land there doesn’t necessarily seem reasonable
    - bpt3 1y ago
      It's not a severe limitation to tell someone that everyone who lives in an area agreed to something that they'll have to adhere to if they want to live there also.
      - wqaatwt 1y ago
        It obvious is. I’am not saying whether collectivism is good or bad, though.
bpt3 1y ago
> The only reasonable way for them to be entitled to prevent density is for them to own the property and not build anything. Of course. > 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. Pro-housing people in my area absolutely are trying to force people to do things with their property and in their neighborhood by barring covenants and other restrictions that can be put in place by municipalities and HOAs.
- hamburglar 1y ago
  Barring restrictions is absolutely not “forcing” anyone to do anything. Take away all restrictions on my lot and I am still not forced to develop on it.
  - ratelimitsteve 1y ago
    A law negating a covenant everyone entered into willingly and freely does kinda alter the deal after its made. I do wholeheartedly agree that removing zoning restrictions doesn't impinge on anyone's liberty though.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      Covenants are already heavily regulated and have a pretty icky history in the US.
    - wqaatwt 1y ago
      > and freely If that was the case i.e. nobody wanted to build anything new on their land why would the “convenant” be necessary. Or is the idea that former owners can impose these decisions they made on anyone they sell the property to?
      - ratelimitsteve 1y ago
        We allow all sorts of encumbrances to transfer with property. You can sell a house with an easement that lets neighbors use some amount of your property for access, with a tenant who has a contractual right to stay to the end of a lease regardless of what the new owner wants, or with a covenant to limit development. Hell, a couple years back an entire mall sold for $20 with the agreement that the buyer was assuming all of the seller's debt and also the seller's contractual obligation to perform road maintenance. If you couldn't transfer these agreements with a sale they'd be useless even absent a sale. Either no one would buy the property because its unsellable and the value would plummet or you would buy it with the encumbrances, transfer ownership from your left hand to your right hand to remove them and then do what you want.

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".
  - ndriscoll 1y ago
    Because "yimby"s go to higher government to force localities to adopt rules they vote against, i.e. they get their way with authoritarian policies that apply outside of "their backyard". Some even think there should be national laws! They want their policies applied to essentially an entire continent. Nimbys typically don't care about things that are not part of their locality. San Francisco wants giant skyscrapers? Cool, none in my city, thanks. That's why we chose to live in an area that bans high density. From what I've seen the actual policies being pushed by "yimbys" seem much closer to yiyby.
    - danaris 1y ago
      And this is because individual property rights must not be sacrosanct in a civilized society. We already have a number of rules of what you can and can't do with your private property that I think most people agree on. You can't build a slaughterhouse right in the middle of a residential area. You can't dump your garbage into the water flowing through your property. Etc. Those are rules we all agree on because they have immediate and very visible primary effects. The things we're talking about now are less visible secondary effects, but they're still very real. The ability of our entire society to be able to securely and affordably house all its members is a much stronger imperative than the ability of people in any particular area to have nice views, or neighbors who all share the same socioeconomic class/skin color/native language as them.
      - immibis 1y ago
        We should probably try to keep them to a minimum though, lest we stifle innovation. You wouldn't want to stifle innovation, would you? Or inadvertently destroy shareholder value?
    - triceratops 1y ago
      > Nimbys typically don't care about things that are not part of their locality Yimbys go even smaller. They don't care about things that are not in their backyard. You want an apartment building on your land? Cool, none on my land thanks. If you care about freedom, go with yimbys. The nimbys are the ones putting encumbrances on your property.
- triceratops 1y ago
  > Zoning regulations should reflect the desires of a community The community can express its desires by building whatever kind of housing they want on their property. What you're talking about is my property having to reflect the desires of the rest of the community.
  - bpt3 1y ago
    No, the existing community made decisions that already exist. Potential new residents should have no say, and actual new residents knew what they were before they purchased the property.
- immibis 1y ago
  The whole theoretical conception of property rights is that a property right is the right to control what happens on your property, which implies you don't have the right to control what happens on other people's property, because that right belongs to other people. You can't eat your cake and have it. If you want property to be a neighbourhood thing then you should also be required to let the benefits of your own property accrue to your whole neighbourhood and not just yourself. So no tall fences for example. How come everyone else should have to do what you want, but you shouldn't have to do what everyone else wants?
  - ndriscoll 1y ago
    My neighborhood does in fact ban any kind of front yard fence, and I'd have to check but the only backyard fences I recall seeing are those around pools, which are legally required for child safety reasons.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  This is just a tragedy of the commons situation. Obviously, every single existing property owner wants it to stop right now. Because more housing means more supply, means less money for them. They naturally want to pull the ladder up. But if you just let them, then there's 0 new homes being built in the US. And then the economy implodes. We have to toe a line necessarily. If you just allow the tragedy of the commons to happen 100%, then everyone loses. Everyone, including those who benefit. Its like feudalism. Feudalism seems like a fantastic idea if you're a feudal lord. But... Its actually not. No, you lose too. Imagine how much richer those feudal lords could have been had they not impeded the progress of Europe for hundreds of years.
  - BirdieNZ 1y ago
    > Obviously, every single existing property owner wants it to stop right now. Because more housing means more supply, means less money for them. Upzoning actually increases land values, because it gives you the option to develop your land into a higher-productivity use (and hence higher potential rents). NIMBYs in my observation tend to be anti-change; they bought with the neighbourhood a particular way and want it to stay that way. Upzoning brings in a change in the vibe and demographic that they don't want.
    - bpt3 1y ago
      Exactly. Most people don't buy a home with the hope that the surroundings will change drastically. And of course is there is a change for the better, the same people who complain about about NIMBYs will complain about gentrification.
- wqaatwt 1y ago
  Severely limiting the property rights of anyone owning land there doesn’t necessarily seem reasonable
  - bpt3 1y ago
    It's not a severe limitation to tell someone that everyone who lives in an area agreed to something that they'll have to adhere to if they want to live there also.
    - wqaatwt 1y ago
      It obvious is. I’am not saying whether collectivism is good or bad, though.

bpt3 1y ago

> The only reasonable way for them to be entitled to prevent density is for them to own the property and not build anything. Of course. > 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. Pro-housing people in my area absolutely are trying to force people to do things with their property and in their neighborhood by barring covenants and other restrictions that can be put in place by municipalities and HOAs.

hamburglar 1y ago
Barring restrictions is absolutely not “forcing” anyone to do anything. Take away all restrictions on my lot and I am still not forced to develop on it.
- ratelimitsteve 1y ago
  A law negating a covenant everyone entered into willingly and freely does kinda alter the deal after its made. I do wholeheartedly agree that removing zoning restrictions doesn't impinge on anyone's liberty though.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Covenants are already heavily regulated and have a pretty icky history in the US.
  - wqaatwt 1y ago
    > and freely If that was the case i.e. nobody wanted to build anything new on their land why would the “convenant” be necessary. Or is the idea that former owners can impose these decisions they made on anyone they sell the property to?
    - ratelimitsteve 1y ago
      We allow all sorts of encumbrances to transfer with property. You can sell a house with an easement that lets neighbors use some amount of your property for access, with a tenant who has a contractual right to stay to the end of a lease regardless of what the new owner wants, or with a covenant to limit development. Hell, a couple years back an entire mall sold for $20 with the agreement that the buyer was assuming all of the seller's debt and also the seller's contractual obligation to perform road maintenance. If you couldn't transfer these agreements with a sale they'd be useless even absent a sale. Either no one would buy the property because its unsellable and the value would plummet or you would buy it with the encumbrances, transfer ownership from your left hand to your right hand to remove them and then do what you want.