upzone

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by upzone 8y ago

   > The equitable solution would be to compensate surrounding owners for their property losing value or them losing enjoyment when zoning changes... So we should use public money to compensate private property owners for making a bad gambl
2. 2.▲
   by upzone 8y ago

   That’s the other thing: real estate is not a guaranteed investment. If you invest money in a house and its value goes down, I’m sorry, but that’s the risk you take. A home is not a guaranteed investment vehicle, despite that being the outco
3. 3.▲
   by upzone 8y ago

   That’s called by-right and lots of cities (maybe all? Not sure if it’s a local/state/federal thing) have that. That doesn’t stop NIMBYism (all you have to do is downzone), but for areas that are reasonably densely zoned, you don’t
4. 4.▲
   by upzone 8y ago

   So actually, Japan does something like this. Residences can be built pretty much anywhere (except near super heavy industry), because their zoning is all about how much of a nuisance something is. They also don’t have strict usage restricti
5. 5.▲
   by upzone 8y ago

   So first of all, you don’t have a right not to live in a shadow. Millions of people in cities all over the world deal with it every day. It’s not that bad (tbh it probably helps AC bills too). You have certain rights when you buy property,