3 ms·

> 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 peop

by 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.
- bpt3 1y ago
  Let me know your address so I can buy the adjacent properties and force you to live next to a landfill or move away from your now-worthless home.
  - hamburglar 1y ago
    It may surprise you but I’m not actually scared of that happening. I’m actually zoned for the house next door to me to turn into a seven story building, which many in my city think is horrifying, but I’m not scared of that either.
    - bpt3 1y ago
      If you legitimately would have no issues being surrounded by a landfill, you're such an outlier that your opinion is basically meaningless.
      - hamburglar 1y ago
        You’re jumping to conclusions. I didn’t say I wouldn’t have any issue with it; I said I’m not scared it’s going to happen. I have evaluated the risk and am sufficiently certain that won’t happen. The lots around my house are far too expensive to turn into landfill.
msteffen 1y ago
Honestly the biggest reason I became a pro-density advocate is because low-density communities are almost always tax-revenue-negative[1], given that the cost of things like roads, water and sewer infrastructure scale with land area. What NIMBYs often seem to want are the amenities of city living (like a sewer instead of a septic tank in your yard) without the people, and that just doesn’t work. [1]: https://youtu.be/7Nw6qyyrTeI https://youtu.be/7Nw6qyyrTeI
- ndriscoll 1y ago
  The suburbs I've lived in have spent far more on things that scale with population (primarily education) than things that scale with area. You also can't split revenue from downtown commercial areas out from surrounding residential like that. Are businesses "subsidizing" residents? Of course not. That doesn't even make sense as a question.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- bpt3 1y ago
  Posting a video from a highly biased source is not very convincing. Almost every household with a child is tax revenue negative, and I don't think you're suggesting we reform education funding to correct that.
  - msteffen 1y ago
    Look, the people making this argument all come from a fairly aligned political unit. If you start hearing this perspective from a broad coalition of ideologically diverse groups, it would mean the thesis has become consensus. I agree with you that the guy's tone is not great, so here's a slightly different framing: https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/4/17/sprawl-is-not-the-problem https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/4/17/sprawl-is-... (strong towns' emphasis is on ending federal infrastructure loans that leave cities and suburbs with infrastructure they don't have the tax base to maintain over a generation. Which I think leads to similar conclusions but they're careful not to say that). Their framing also highlights the important financial difference between children and sewers, though: the former get less expensive and more productive over time, and the latter do the opposite, which is how the problems happen.

by bpt3 1y ago

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.
bpt3 1y ago
Let me know your address so I can buy the adjacent properties and force you to live next to a landfill or move away from your now-worthless home.
- hamburglar 1y ago
  It may surprise you but I’m not actually scared of that happening. I’m actually zoned for the house next door to me to turn into a seven story building, which many in my city think is horrifying, but I’m not scared of that either.
  - bpt3 1y ago
    If you legitimately would have no issues being surrounded by a landfill, you're such an outlier that your opinion is basically meaningless.
    - hamburglar 1y ago
      You’re jumping to conclusions. I didn’t say I wouldn’t have any issue with it; I said I’m not scared it’s going to happen. I have evaluated the risk and am sufficiently certain that won’t happen. The lots around my house are far too expensive to turn into landfill.

msteffen 1y ago

Honestly the biggest reason I became a pro-density advocate is because low-density communities are almost always tax-revenue-negative[1], given that the cost of things like roads, water and sewer infrastructure scale with land area. What NIMBYs often seem to want are the amenities of city living (like a sewer instead of a septic tank in your yard) without the people, and that just doesn’t work. [1]: https://youtu.be/7Nw6qyyrTeI https://youtu.be/7Nw6qyyrTeI

ndriscoll 1y ago
The suburbs I've lived in have spent far more on things that scale with population (primarily education) than things that scale with area. You also can't split revenue from downtown commercial areas out from surrounding residential like that. Are businesses "subsidizing" residents? Of course not. That doesn't even make sense as a question.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
bpt3 1y ago
Posting a video from a highly biased source is not very convincing. Almost every household with a child is tax revenue negative, and I don't think you're suggesting we reform education funding to correct that.
- msteffen 1y ago
  Look, the people making this argument all come from a fairly aligned political unit. If you start hearing this perspective from a broad coalition of ideologically diverse groups, it would mean the thesis has become consensus. I agree with you that the guy's tone is not great, so here's a slightly different framing: https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/4/17/sprawl-is-not-the-problem https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/4/17/sprawl-is-... (strong towns' emphasis is on ending federal infrastructure loans that leave cities and suburbs with infrastructure they don't have the tax base to maintain over a generation. Which I think leads to similar conclusions but they're careful not to say that). Their framing also highlights the important financial difference between children and sewers, though: the former get less expensive and more productive over time, and the latter do the opposite, which is how the problems happen.