That's not what I'm talking about at all. Zoning regulations should reflect the desires of a community, and there's no inherent reason they can't be more restrictive than yimbys would like.

▲

array_key_first 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is just a tragedy of the commons situation.

Obviously, every single existing property owner wants it to stop right now. Because more housing means more supply, means less money for them. They naturally want to pull the ladder up.

But if you just let them, then there's 0 new homes being built in the US. And then the economy implodes.

We have to toe a line necessarily. If you just allow the tragedy of the commons to happen 100%, then everyone loses. Everyone, including those who benefit.

Its like feudalism. Feudalism seems like a fantastic idea if you're a feudal lord. But... Its actually not. No, you lose too.

Imagine how much richer those feudal lords could have been had they not impeded the progress of Europe for hundreds of years.

▲

BirdieNZ 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Obviously, every single existing property owner wants it to stop right now. Because more housing means more supply, means less money for them.

Upzoning actually increases land values, because it gives you the option to develop your land into a higher-productivity use (and hence higher potential rents).

NIMBYs in my observation tend to be anti-change; they bought with the neighbourhood a particular way and want it to stay that way. Upzoning brings in a change in the vibe and demographic that they don't want.

	▲	bpt3 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Exactly. Most people don't buy a home with the hope that the surroundings will change drastically. And of course is there is a change for the better, the same people who complain about about NIMBYs will complain about gentrification.

▲

triceratops 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Zoning regulations should reflect the desires of a community

The community can express its desires by building whatever kind of housing they want on their property. What you're talking about is my property having to reflect the desires of the rest of the community.

	▲	bpt3 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, the existing community made decisions that already exist. Potential new residents should have no say, and actual new residents knew what they were before they purchased the property.

▲

ratelimitsteve 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

you used the word "entitled" though, and that has a specific meaning. why would nimbys be "entitled" to stop high density housing but yimbys not be "entitled" to do it? this contradiction resolves itself very neatly in a system where yimbys get to do what they want with their property and nimbys get to do what they want with theirs. It only gets complex when one person wants complete control of their property and also partial control over someone else's, and they dress up their own personal best interest as "the desires of the community".

▲

ndriscoll 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Because "yimby"s go to higher government to force localities to adopt rules they vote against, i.e. they get their way with authoritarian policies that apply outside of "their backyard". Some even think there should be national laws! They want their policies applied to essentially an entire continent. Nimbys typically don't care about things that are not part of their locality. San Francisco wants giant skyscrapers? Cool, none in my city, thanks. That's why we chose to live in an area that bans high density.

From what I've seen the actual policies being pushed by "yimbys" seem much closer to yiyby.

▲

triceratops 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Nimbys typically don't care about things that are not part of their locality

Yimbys go even smaller. They don't care about things that are not in their backyard.

You want an apartment building on your land? Cool, none on my land thanks.

If you care about freedom, go with yimbys. The nimbys are the ones putting encumbrances on your property.

▲

ndriscoll 3 days ago | parent [-]

Obviously I don't care about that freedom. Just like I don't care about the freedom to put up ugly billboards on your land. That's why we bought a home in an area that bans those things. It also requires ugly parking lots to be set back behind a tree line, and new residential developments must have bike trails that connect to the wider network. I'm happy for you to live somewhere where you have that freedom though. I know "no rules" appeals to some!

▲

triceratops 3 days ago | parent [-]

So you don't care about other people's freedoms but yimbys are bad because they're "authoritarian". Got it, totally cool, logical, and consistent.

You could just be honest and say "I want to use government power to suit my needs, even if it costs other people. But no one else can do that". It's pretty selfish but at least we'll know where you stand.

▲

ndriscoll 3 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah that's why I moved somewhere where those were the agreed local regulations and everyone else was on the same page. That's why local governance is good. Everyone can find somewhere where they can be happy.

▲

triceratops 3 days ago | parent [-]

> everyone else was on the same page

You can't know that though. Unless you hold a referendum to renew the rules every year and they pass by a 100% majority.

The only honest way to do it is without invoking government power. Move to a gated community. Have a neighborhood association, funded solely by residents, whose bylaws require that it gets to have any property up for sale in the community as long as it matches any other accepted offer on it.

If you want your "dream community" spend your own money. Don't go into other people's pockets.

	▲	ndriscoll 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don't subscribe to pure anarchism. We also have local public schools, parks, libraries, bike trails, etc. funded by "other people's" (our) pockets. It's fine. The US at least has 10 million sq km. Plenty of room for different types of communities to exist. The are cities in multiple directions a few miles away with less restrictive zoning if people like the area but want apartments, townhomes, or advertising.

▲

danaris 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

And this is because individual property rights must not be sacrosanct in a civilized society.

We already have a number of rules of what you can and can't do with your private property that I think most people agree on. You can't build a slaughterhouse right in the middle of a residential area. You can't dump your garbage into the water flowing through your property. Etc.

Those are rules we all agree on because they have immediate and very visible primary effects.

The things we're talking about now are less visible secondary effects, but they're still very real.

The ability of our entire society to be able to securely and affordably house all its members is a much stronger imperative than the ability of people in any particular area to have nice views, or neighbors who all share the same socioeconomic class/skin color/native language as them.

	▲	immibis 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		We should probably try to keep them to a minimum though, lest we stifle innovation. You wouldn't want to stifle innovation, would you? Or inadvertently destroy shareholder value?

▲

tptacek 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There are all kinds of desires local communities might have that are proscribed by state law. Why should this one be different? If you don't want those laws passed, organize for a candidate who will oppose them. If the state goes the other way on a land-use issue within that state, it's hard for me to see why there's some moral mandate that local NIMBYs be allowed to overrule them.

▲

immibis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The whole theoretical conception of property rights is that a property right is the right to control what happens on your property, which implies you don't have the right to control what happens on other people's property, because that right belongs to other people. You can't eat your cake and have it.

If you want property to be a neighbourhood thing then you should also be required to let the benefits of your own property accrue to your whole neighbourhood and not just yourself. So no tall fences for example. How come everyone else should have to do what you want, but you shouldn't have to do what everyone else wants?

	▲	ndriscoll 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		My neighborhood does in fact ban any kind of front yard fence, and I'd have to check but the only backyard fences I recall seeing are those around pools, which are legally required for child safety reasons.

▲

wqaatwt 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Severely limiting the property rights of anyone owning land there doesn’t necessarily seem reasonable

▲

bpt3 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's not a severe limitation to tell someone that everyone who lives in an area agreed to something that they'll have to adhere to if they want to live there also.

	▲	wqaatwt 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It obvious is. I’am not saying whether collectivism is good or bad, though.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]