7/ I bought a farm w a basket of rights. One that was NOT present was "I can do X 3' from property line". One that WAS present was "I can stop my neighbor from doing Y 3' from the property line". And, being a 47th level sperg lord, I ACTUALLY READ THE ZONING CODE BEFORE BUYING.
-
Show this thread
-
8/ So, having purchased a certain bundle of rights / assets, a de facto or de jure change in the zoning code afterwards is in fact an uncompensated government taking / transfer of rights / property.
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
9/ So my challenge to
@amyalkon (who I like / respect / agree with 99% of the time) is to think of changes in zoning as ex post facto regulation / a 5th amendment taking. Person X bought basket of goods Y and WANTS them. Why can gov come in and alter / take from Y ?4 replies 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
10/ Also, N.B. I'm a deontologist. I think that, having purchased that basket, it's mine. Perhaps
@amyalkon is a utilitarian and will defend taking from that purchased basket Y bc the overall result is better. In which case, there's an argument in some book I read 25 yrs ago1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
11/ (maybe "Takings" by Epstein? Not sure) which argues that if the total increase in utility outweighs the loss from the taking, then at or above market rate compensation is legitimate and called for. Read it around 1991 or 1993, so maybe this? https://www.amazon.com/Takings-Private-Property-Eminent-Domain-dp-0674867289/dp/0674867289 …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted Horrors Greeley’s Airtight Garage
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
Horrors Greeley’s Airtight Garage @HorrorsGreeleyReplying to @MorlockPAnd then, having deformed the market, and people bought and sold properties based on that zoning, they suddenly change the rules. Now you no longer live among single family homes, but next to a 7 story apt building. Not that I’d know from personal experience.2 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
TBH the idea of primary residence as financial investment is a bad one that should go away. Creates pressure for endless rising prices that eventually make it impossible for poorer people to get a house at all (already happened in a lot of these cities).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ded_ruckus @GepppySB and
Given a lot of people have already structured their lives around this bad idea, though, it's not clear how to unwind it without hurting them a lot in the process.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
> TBH the idea of primary residence as financial investment is a bad one that should go away. it's not like anyone created a PLAN to do this; it's just an acknowledgement of reality. If cars happened to cost $300,000 and go up in value, while houses cost $10k, it'd be otherwise
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
so saying "it's a bad idea that should go away" is ... kind of useless? non-actionable? like, "people get hungry and then eat" is a bad idea and should go away, because it leads to obesity but ... how are you going to do that? boils down to "life sucks" yep. and?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.