Hacker News Reader

Comment by colechristensen | Hacker News Reader

I mean, don’t the people who live in a place have the right to decide they don’t want to invite in population until their homes are turned into a megacity? And if people don’t like the prevailing political opinions of a place that doesn’t want to change its nature to suit them, aren’t there plenty of other places to go?

The market its screwed up in the Bay Area because they in way more jobs than they wanted to let in housing, that’s a problem, but I don’t begrudge people that want to put limits on density because they want to live in a certain kind of place.

View on HN

No, they don't.

Ifbyou want control over who can move in somewhere, or what can be built somewhere, you have a simple solution, buy the land in question.

> buy the land in question.

NIMBYs will argue that, in a certain sense, they did: they bought the land their houses stand on decades or centuries ago, when the area was farm land, and then promoted a city charter for a certain type of community, together with every other citizen in the area. They paid taxes for local infrastructure, schools, time and effort to organize and solve community issues, inconvenience when a new water mains or bypass was built etc. etc.

This whole communal development is what made the area desirable, it's not like they are hoarding limited farmland. It's the combination of private property + working community rules that create property value.

Some owners in the area would now opt out of those rules outside the democratic process pre-agreed to their change, by simply building a large condo building on their plot, depreciating the value of nearby single family homes and pocketing the cash. You can imagine existing owners will fight tooth and nail to maintain the agreed rules.

While i don't 100% subscribe to this point of view and there is much to be said about the exclusionary and down right racist behavior it can enable, the issue of urban development is not quite as clear cut as you make it out to be.

I have been pondering this recently, and I feel the most fair solution is to simply reduce the of landowners to have input on what other people do with their land.

I believe the comparison to limited farmland is actually much more appropriate. Land in SF or Seattle is a very valuable and scarce resource. It can help a lot of people when used efficiently.

If you take Seattle for example, the land isn’t valuable because NIMBYs did such a great job running the city. They’ve done an awful job. Every possible mistake has been made. The land is valuable because it’s close to Amazon or Microsoft.

I don’t think that a decline in my property’s value should be a basis for legal restrictions on another person’s right to use their property. That seems like a hijacking of the legal system for my own personal wealth at the very real cost of others.

If a wealthy landowner in Seattle wants a yard and hates the look of skyscrapers, they can sell their land for millions of dollars and buy in a community more suited to their tastes. Nobody likes to move, but making it illegal to use land efficiently for one’s own convenience is frankly pretty disgusting to me.

How does new apartment construction impact nearby home values? Usually positively. There can be other issues, of course (more people!) but it’s not right to present increasing density as ripping off the neighbors.

https://www.sandyjournal.com/2021/10/04/370780/how-does-new-...

The value of land increases with density, but the utility of existing properties decreases.

What's an example of decreased utility? Less parking?

My biggest issue with increased density is shit design. Like, when they spent all the money on lawyers to get approval and stiffed the architects. When it is a nice 5 story building I love it.

Lots of people on the outside seem to only like self determination for a population when their decisions agree.

When you realize that in a democracy the poorest don't vote at all and that we are represented by millionaires, it all seems so pointless to vote. Self determination my ass.

Democratic process isn’t coming to conclusions I agree with -> democracy is a scam -> an authoritarian solution is required because I’m more correct than everyone else

It seems like too many people only have ideals about politics when those ideals result in everyone agreeing with them. Otherwise the whole thing is a rigged scam and not worth the time.

democratic process isn't actually happening -> it's a scam to call it democracy -> a technocratic solution that meets the needs of the burgeoning disenfranchised population is required because the degree of inequality that we're dealing with is creating severe social conflicts

>a technocratic solution that meets the needs of the burgeoning disenfranchised population is required because the degree of inequality that we're dealing with is creating severe social conflicts

I'm sure that the non-elected technocrats wouldn't be susceptible to the "represented by millionaires" problem that you bemoaned about earlier.

Exactly. Technocrats are just oligarchs branding themselves as smarter than everybody else.

i'd be much happier to have healthcare policy be shaped by family practice doctors than by parliamentarians and bill gates

> No, they don't.

> Ifbyou want control over who can move in somewhere, or what can be built somewhere, you have a simple solution, buy the land in question.

That seems contradictory. The existing owners did by definition buy that land they own. So you're saying thus they get to decide, but also that no they don't.

People who rent also have voting rights for electing local governments in many places in the world.

True, but they still don’t have as much influence on local government as much as more affluent residents. The prime example would be Palo Alto. It’s the NIMBY capital of the world. Even Stanford University has trouble with development on land that they own.

That is mostly their fault for not voting (renters are less likely go vote and thus don't matter). Also their fault for not realizing property tax that the landlord pays comes from rent or lack of maintenance (complex because supply and demand sets rent prices, so tax is a second order effect)

yeah, I wonder if there's anything we can do about this situation

All I can think of is to spread the word about zoning laws, since currently we're still in a situation where renters mostly just get angry at foreigners, rich people, corporations, etc.

Tokyo probably takes things to an extreme that Americans wouldn't like (all the zoning laws are restricted by the national government, as I understand it). I just think it'd be nice if everyone stuck renting overpriced crapholes in the SF Bay Area would start showing up and voting for denser housing

The last time that was possible at least in Palo Alto was before they split from what is now known as East Palo Alto. Even if all the renters voted, they only represent 33% of Palo Alto's population; so no it is NOT their fault.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com