4 ms·

Why don't we let people who like living in dense housing build and live in dense housing? And leave those who don't in peace? Right now we only do the second on

Why don't we let people who like living in dense housing build and live in dense housing? And leave those who don't in peace? Right now we only do the second one but make the first one illegal.

apparent 9mo ago
Sure, we do let people do that. The thing that's objectionable is when a suburban neighborhood is rezoned by people who live hundreds of miles away, and developers get the green light to build towers there. Why do people who don't live in a place think they're entitled to change the zoning of that place? What's to stop them from saying that it should now be zoned for industrial, and a chemical treatment plant can open up next door to a school? It's the same line of thinking.
- triceratops 9mo ago
  > Why do people who don't live in a place think they're entitled to change the zoning of that place? Why do people who don't own the land think they're entitled to tell the actual owners what they can build? > It's the same line of thinking. It is not. This is a made up slippery slope.
  - apparent 9mo ago
    When someone buys land, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do to it, subject to the zoning laws that were in effect at the time of purchase, or passed by a majority of voters in that area after purchase.
    - triceratops 9mo ago
      State law supersedes local law. These new purchasers would like cities to follow the law.
      - apparent 9mo ago
        If you're talking about CA's state laws, you're right that they supersede local laws. You'll notice that I used the word "should" in my comment, indicating a normative view. I think CA's state legislators have passed many laws that were unwise, including several that voters have had to undo via constitutional amendments. While I would place state laws passed by popular vote above local laws passed by popular vote, I would say that laws passed by representatives, without much awareness of voters that this was their intention, should not necessarily be put above local laws passed by voters themselves.
        deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
        triceratops 9mo ago
        A Reddit-style reply feels apropos here: "That's just like...your opinion man." And in this case "local laws passed by voters themselves" are one of the causes of the state's housing crisis. I think the state has a legitimate interest in overriding local laws here. Like if you don't want high density in your neighborhood, buy all the houses. Form a neighborhood association and buy every house that's put up for sale. When selling properties, include covenants restricting resale to a developer, or giving the association first right of refusal. Spend your own money. Don't use state violence to achieve private ends.
        apparent 9mo ago
        "state violence", what an awesome way to hyperbolize! I'll have to remember this next time there's a law I don't like.
        triceratops 9mo ago
        Is it wrong? If I try to build an apartment building on land I legally own in violation of a zoning law voted in before I was born, by people who never paid a cent for my land, the sheriffs department pays me a visit.
- HDThoreaun 9mo ago
  Not in California we don’t let people do that. The demand for condos far outstrips the amount of land zoned for them
  - bombcar 9mo ago
    Is it demand for condos or is it demand for reasonably-priced housing and condos are the only even remote possibility? I've met a few people who really loved condo living but almost every one would have taken the single family home next to the condo building if it had been even remotely similar in price.
    - HDThoreaun 9mo ago
      Those are the same thing? Not sure what youre asking, there is limited space, people recognize that having a SFH involves tradeoffs, just as most other things in life do.
colechristensen 9mo ago
>And leave those who don't in peace? That's not what's happening. People who are living like that are being invaded by high density people who want to live in high density in their communities. They want to take over and force people out. And generally they just want to flip. Find somewhere cheap and make it expensive to make money by lowering everybody's quality of life and calling it progress.
- triceratops 9mo ago
  > They want to take over and force people out. How do you "force" people out? The existing owners have to sell land, and once they do the new owners have as much right to decide as the other residents. Are there thugs going door to door forcing sellers to sign papers? Allowing higher density construction doesn't mean higher density must get built there. That's still up to the property owner to decide. True freedom.
  - colechristensen 9mo ago
    Property taxes and cost of living causing people who own to be priced out and forced to sell their homes because of bankruptcy. And the occasional eminent domain.
    - iamnothere 9mo ago
      Property taxes? Not in California (prop 13).
      - colechristensen 9mo ago
        and the YIMBY (but really somebody else's back yard) yell loudly about this property tax carveout and how terrible it is for their density goals
        iamnothere 9mo ago
        And that yelling is their free speech. As is your complaint in response.

Why don't we let people who like living in dense housing build and live in dense housing? And leave those who don't in peace? Right now we only do the second one but make the first one illegal.

apparent 9mo ago

Sure, we do let people do that. The thing that's objectionable is when a suburban neighborhood is rezoned by people who live hundreds of miles away, and developers get the green light to build towers there. Why do people who don't live in a place think they're entitled to change the zoning of that place? What's to stop them from saying that it should now be zoned for industrial, and a chemical treatment plant can open up next door to a school? It's the same line of thinking.

triceratops 9mo ago
> Why do people who don't live in a place think they're entitled to change the zoning of that place? Why do people who don't own the land think they're entitled to tell the actual owners what they can build? > It's the same line of thinking. It is not. This is a made up slippery slope.
- apparent 9mo ago
  When someone buys land, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do to it, subject to the zoning laws that were in effect at the time of purchase, or passed by a majority of voters in that area after purchase.
  - triceratops 9mo ago
    State law supersedes local law. These new purchasers would like cities to follow the law.
    - apparent 9mo ago
      If you're talking about CA's state laws, you're right that they supersede local laws. You'll notice that I used the word "should" in my comment, indicating a normative view. I think CA's state legislators have passed many laws that were unwise, including several that voters have had to undo via constitutional amendments. While I would place state laws passed by popular vote above local laws passed by popular vote, I would say that laws passed by representatives, without much awareness of voters that this was their intention, should not necessarily be put above local laws passed by voters themselves.
      - deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
      - triceratops 9mo ago
        A Reddit-style reply feels apropos here: "That's just like...your opinion man." And in this case "local laws passed by voters themselves" are one of the causes of the state's housing crisis. I think the state has a legitimate interest in overriding local laws here. Like if you don't want high density in your neighborhood, buy all the houses. Form a neighborhood association and buy every house that's put up for sale. When selling properties, include covenants restricting resale to a developer, or giving the association first right of refusal. Spend your own money. Don't use state violence to achieve private ends.
        apparent 9mo ago
        "state violence", what an awesome way to hyperbolize! I'll have to remember this next time there's a law I don't like.
        triceratops 9mo ago
        Is it wrong? If I try to build an apartment building on land I legally own in violation of a zoning law voted in before I was born, by people who never paid a cent for my land, the sheriffs department pays me a visit.
HDThoreaun 9mo ago
Not in California we don’t let people do that. The demand for condos far outstrips the amount of land zoned for them
- bombcar 9mo ago
  Is it demand for condos or is it demand for reasonably-priced housing and condos are the only even remote possibility? I've met a few people who really loved condo living but almost every one would have taken the single family home next to the condo building if it had been even remotely similar in price.
  - HDThoreaun 9mo ago
    Those are the same thing? Not sure what youre asking, there is limited space, people recognize that having a SFH involves tradeoffs, just as most other things in life do.

colechristensen 9mo ago

>And leave those who don't in peace? That's not what's happening. People who are living like that are being invaded by high density people who want to live in high density in their communities. They want to take over and force people out. And generally they just want to flip. Find somewhere cheap and make it expensive to make money by lowering everybody's quality of life and calling it progress.

triceratops 9mo ago
> They want to take over and force people out. How do you "force" people out? The existing owners have to sell land, and once they do the new owners have as much right to decide as the other residents. Are there thugs going door to door forcing sellers to sign papers? Allowing higher density construction doesn't mean higher density must get built there. That's still up to the property owner to decide. True freedom.
- colechristensen 9mo ago
  Property taxes and cost of living causing people who own to be priced out and forced to sell their homes because of bankruptcy. And the occasional eminent domain.
  - iamnothere 9mo ago
    Property taxes? Not in California (prop 13).
    - colechristensen 9mo ago
      and the YIMBY (but really somebody else's back yard) yell loudly about this property tax carveout and how terrible it is for their density goals
      - iamnothere 9mo ago
        And that yelling is their free speech. As is your complaint in response.