1. sorry you feel the need to make personal attacks rather than addressing points of argument
2. presumably we agree that neighbors can enter in to agreements, HOAs, even create governments. If we've made an agreement and I've relied on that agreement, I expect you to keep it.
Conversation
According to your logic, the government literally can’t change any laws or regulations lmao
1
13
It depends on the powers of the government. In an HOA, it's up to the property owners to vote. In a government, it's usually up to the residents. Problem is when the residents are at odds with the property owners. Usually, it's the residents trying to take something from owners.
3
1
Jesse, my sincere advice to you is to make enough money that you can buy a massive plot of land in the middle of nowhere and build whatever you want there that satisfies your needs. But stop trying to impose your NIMBYism on me and other people who live in SF.
1
32
Why don't you guys go move it the middle of nowhere and build whatever society you want there with a clean slate? Seems like that'd be a lot easier than trying to fight the existing system that all the property owners have already bought in to and relied upon all these years.
1
1
Because, if your goal is to live somewhere with no jobs and few people, you can easily just move yourself out to the middle of nowhere. If my goal is to live somewhere with jobs and lots of people, I'd have to somehow move lots of jobs and people to this location - not easy.
2
1
20
I want to live in a low density community with lots of jobs and lots of people nearby, who will respect the laws of our community and not try to force rezoning and colonization upon us. I am willing to pay a lot to live in such an area. What's the price to be left alone?
15
8
1
Morally speaking? The price would be for each house in the low-density community to pay as much in property taxes as a large apartment building. Because that's the revenue you're denying the local government by keeping your area low-density.
1
18
Sounds about right but there's some value in a diversity of land use. You don't want to treat all the land as if it's useful for the most taxable purpose. A city can't only be housing. There's some point where you give a little to attract biz, rich residents who'll spend & hire.
1
2
Lots of rich people love living in dense areas. Just look at manhattan - no shortage of rich people there. If you are the type of rich person who wants to live in a low-density area, you should pay for the externality of preventing others from utilizing land more effectively.
1
10
Ya, I agree with that. Happy to pay the price. Would much prefer to just pay to stay where I'm at than have a bunch of people vote to take away my rights.
you have no right to stop other people from building more housing on their private property, sorry!
1
6
Did they make an agreement with me to not build housing on their private property? Is that the law of the land? Was it the law when they bought the property? Did they have some reasonable expectation that they wouldn't have to follow the law?
1
1
Show replies
Your rights are not being taken away. You have no right to restrict your neighbor from using their property as they see fit. Yes, you can vote to do it, but others can vote differently. The Supreme Court would rule against property rights restrictions, if anything.
1
6
Whether I have that right depends on what system of law we all agreed to. If the law says they're not allowed to build, I do have the right to block it. I relied on that law and made investments, and I'd be damaged by a breach of contract. They can try to change the law.
1
1
Show replies
If you want to pay the price, buy your neighbors’ land and don’t build on it. If you aren’t willing to do that, you’re not really willing to pay the price—you’re asking everyone else to pay it for you
1
21