Anti-NIMBY movement is winning with a simple message

Re:Anti-NIMBY movement is winning with a simple message by crankylinuxuser on Sunday November 12, 2017 @10:24PM (#15684041)

There's a problem there, in that "Right to a View" is protected in Common Law. There is specific provisions in the application of this law (like all laws), but this is a case in point that view is and has been protected.

https://www.samuels-solicitors.co.uk/news/right-to-view

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Anti-NIMBY movement is winning with a simple message by raldi on Sunday November 12, 2017 @10:34PM (#15684096)

Absolutely false in the United States: https://imgur.com/a/ksWTu

Source: https://amzn.com/0873376501

And if you read your own link, it's the same in the UK.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Anti-NIMBY movement is winning with a simple message by junkscience2017 on Monday November 13, 2017 @02:05AM (#15684796)

City and Town Councils in the Bay Area decline projects based on views and other issues all the time. They just label these as "aesthetic concerns" and tell the architect to try again. Ask any builder.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Anti-NIMBY movement is winning with a simple message by intopieces on Sunday November 12, 2017 @10:36PM (#15684102)

The article you posted is about the UK and says the opposite of what you claim: unless there is a specific covenant for a view, it is not protected. Does this covenant thing apply to SF?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Anti-NIMBY movement is winning with a simple message by wlesieutre on Sunday November 12, 2017 @11:31PM (#15684304)

I'm guessing no, but SF does have a concept of "right to light" that blocks construction of tall structures that cast "significant" shadows on public spaces.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Long-shadows-crea...

>But critics argue that economic benefits don’t justify a violation of 1984’s Proposition K — the “Sunlight Ordinance” — which blocks construction of any building over 40 feet that casts an adverse shadow on Recreation and Park Department property unless the Planning Commission decides the shadow is insignificant.

>The project would throw a shadow on Portsmouth Square between 8:05 and 9:10 a.m. from late October to early February. It would shadow St. Mary’s Square, also in Chinatown, in March and September. It would also shadow Justin Herman Plaza, at the foot of Market Street, from mid-October to late February, and Union Square from early May to early August.

[ Parent | on HN ]