Re:California lawmakers have tried for 50 years to fix the s...
by rayiner on Monday December 25, 2017 @06:56PM
(#16006255)
> Says you. I don't see that.
No, the law says that. The law lets you capture the increased value of your property. That’s the nature of a property right. Property rights don’t give you the right to dictate how other people use their property. Even zoning laws were intended to protect neighborhood health and safety, not the locals’ interests in preventing change.
> But you are the one arguing for gov't intervention. The locals want things to stay the same. Its local landowners who don't want change. I don't understand this part of your argument.
Owning property gives you complete dominion over that property, by default. If I own a brownstone, and want to tear it down and build a high rise, I can do that. That’s the nature of property rights. What prevents me from doing that is zoning boards, historical conservency laws, etc. Thats government intervention.
No, the law says that. The law lets you capture the increased value of your property. That’s the nature of a property right. Property rights don’t give you the right to dictate how other people use their property. Even zoning laws were intended to protect neighborhood health and safety, not the locals’ interests in preventing change.
> But you are the one arguing for gov't intervention. The locals want things to stay the same. Its local landowners who don't want change. I don't understand this part of your argument.
Owning property gives you complete dominion over that property, by default. If I own a brownstone, and want to tear it down and build a high rise, I can do that. That’s the nature of property rights. What prevents me from doing that is zoning boards, historical conservency laws, etc. Thats government intervention.