I would argue that zoning laws are not infringing on your rights as a property owner, no more than property taxes are an infringement. They are conditions of property ownership you agree to when proceeding with a transaction to acquire property.

And similarly, a condition of living near other people is that you must accept the presence of other people and infrastructure designed to accommodate them, even if you’d rather it wasn’t there. If you don’t want to be bothered by evidence of human habitation, move far away from the nearest human.

No, that is not the case. There are no requirements that we must have density, that we must accommodate everyone who wants to live on a block or in a zip code. That's not how property works.

Yes, there is a social contract that ends up codified into zoning/code, but that is governed by local government, which is governed by local property owners.

EDIT @ closeparen: I'm really sorry to hear that you feel that me supporting property rights are cartoon villainy. They are the foundation of modern civilization unfortunately.

EDIT 2: > What you're really talking about here is the political power over others that's embedded in property rights. This power is ultimately delegated to property owners by states, and the correct response (and what we're starting to see in CA) is the state seizing that power away from property owners and granting it to the population at large.

You're suggesting subverting democracy. Again, in violation with a democracy that is the foundation of modern civilization. To deprive someone of living in your own home is not a violation of their rights. Socialism I can support, but not communism (ie "the state seizing that power away from property owners and granting it to the population at large").

>To deprive someone of living in your own home

If you don't want to a skyscraper built on your land, don't sell your land.

Your neighbor's land isn't "your own home," it's his.

>You're suggesting subverting democracy.

Subverting a council of the landowning aristocracy (local city govt) with a democracy (state government).

>the foundation of modern civilization

Single-family-home zoning, FAR, parking minimums, sunlight plane, height limits, etc. have barely been around 100 years. Laws dictating that all places must look like modern American suburbs are certainly not "the foundation of modern civilization."

> Subverting a council of the landowning aristocracy (local city govt) with a democracy (state government).

Well, this law is proposed by state government (democracy).

What a nuance. If people vote for a dictatorship, is it a democracy?

I was referring to this bit in post I replied to:

> Subverting a council of the landowning aristocracy (local city govt) with a democracy (state government).

We're all going to learn some surprising things about "how property works" if cartoon villains such as you are permitted to ratchet up the homelessness rate towards 100% for much longer. In practice, though, responsible adults will step in long before that. California is already stripping local property owners of their anti-neighbor tools.

If we want to regulate population growth, fine. But we will have to start rationing birth the way we ration condos if it's really so important to us to avoid the scourge of homes.

EDIT: supporting property rights would be supporting the rights of property owners to build on their land. What you're really talking about here is the political power over others that's embedded in property rights. This power is ultimately delegated to property owners by states, and the correct response (and what we're starting to see in CA) is the state seizing that power away from property owners and granting it to the population at large.

I interpret the contrary of property rights. A land owner should decide what happens on his land, but what he can ask of his neighbors should be very limited. A person with a land in nz can't sell it to a foreigner, he is being deprived of his property rights.

I wouldnt be surprised if a measure like this ends up unconstitutional (no idea about nz constitution)

NZ doesn't have a real, single constitution, more a collection of case law[1].

I'd argue that if a person can no longer reasonably expect to buy a house in their own country then they're being deprived of their rights and that this is a more significant loss than others losing their "rights" to tax free profit from their property speculations.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand

This is an arguement of power, not of economic prosperity or liberty.

The government can always come in an and kick you out. They can raise property taxes to 100% of the house value. It is within their capacity.