Imagine you owned a home and somebody wanted to put a nightclub on one side of you and an abattoir on the other. Do you think that might affect your quality of life at all? I mean hey, it's their property!

Changing conditions within an incredibly dense metro area are part of the terms and conditions into one moving there. If you want land, there's plenty of space for it -- outside the city as opposed to where people have a pressing need to work and live without spending hours commuting and are willing to put up with the density. It is unreasonable to expect things to stay static when so many lives depend on things changing.

Chances are that a 50 story building isn't going next to a single family home without serious changes to the entire block. More likely, people want to build multi-families which are not going to ruin your sunlight. Additionally, changing all of this takes a lot of time, just because zoning may be relaxed doesn't mean overnight its going to turn in to Manhattan or Hong Kong as opposed to Paris which largely is ~6 stories and not particularly known for being a hellhole.

It is immoral to always in favor of the people lucky enough to have bought at the right time. Surely it is a difficult balance, but chances are your home has appreciated enough to give you a lot of options too.

Who's going to buy the home at the original price, let alone an appreciated one, if it's now next to a paper mill?

It doesn't make any sense to assume that someone would want to buy Home A, tear it down, and build a paper mill there, but that nobody could ever want to buy Home B next door and build a profitable venture there as well. Often in these situations, housing values go up, because the opportunity exists to build something more valuable than a house.

Furthermore, when you buy a house, you are a taking a risk. You're making an investment. I don't see why the rest of the world should be bending over backwards and living in stasis to protect your investment. If you want absolute control over what happens on your block, buy your block.

I think if you look a little harder you can find entire neighborhoods of homes becoming worthless because of industrial ventures nearby but I guess your theory sounds nice on paper.

That doesn't contradict my point, as I never claimed that was impossible for housing values to depreciate, only that the alternative happens "often". Specifically:

You're treating all real estate as if it's the same, but the world is more complex than that. We're talking about dense metro areas, where development primarily happens to support growing populations and an influx of businesses. How many expensive homes in downtown SF have become worthless because of industrial ventures nearby? Far, far, far less than have become extremely valuable, if any. This isn't just some theory on paper.

Are we? I was responding to a claim that property owners should have absolute rights to build whatever they please on their property. Nobody builds big smoke stacks in the middle of major cities anymore but you could refer to some 19th-Century writing about London to see how that could be bad as well. Or you could read about the time the Thames stank so bad Parliament all had to leave and was finally compelled to do something about waterway pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink

In short there are a lot of reasons to want to regulate what people build.

As far as I can gather from jeffbax's comment, yes, that's what he was talking about. Not giving property owners absolute rights to build whatever they please. I don't know how many people would seriously support going to that extreme.

The exact question I was answering was "Why shouldn't land owners be able to build whatever they want on their own property?" I imagine he must be a hardcore libertarian because there are a bunch of them here and that is the question he asked and not some other one about mixed zoning.

Oh I see. Yes, he did say that further up, and I think your reply to that was correct. However when he got specific in his next comment and talked about dense metro areas, I don't think your reply was valid, and that's what I've been responding to.

I think, given the context, that what I said is equally true of dense metro areas and suburban neighborhoods that happen to be near shale gas.

As long as they follow the noise and disturbance ordinances, then sure.

Are you suggesting that nightclubs should be banned altogether? If not, then where do you suggest to put them since they are inherently noisy?

That's where zoning comes in. Residential, commercial and so forth. NYC has dozens of zoning codes (eg., R6, R2, https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/districts-tools/re... is just a link to R and there are links on the left to C and the rest), and re-zoning requires a complicated political process. There's no chance of a nightclub opening up next door, but there's plenty of chances a few blocks aware where light industrial is being rezoned.

It's more complicated than Sim City ever was.

Are we talking through each other because I feel like we are arguing the same point.

jzymbaluk said "Why shouldn't land owners be able to build whatever they want on their own property? It's not your backyard, it's your neighbors property" which screams "No zoning" to me.

Then "saagarjha" said "As long as they follow the noise and disturbance ordinances, then sure." which screams "the market will naturally balance homeowner satisfaction with factories/businesses".

I responded with "Are you suggesting that nightclubs should be banned altogether? If not, then where do you suggest to put them since they are inherently noisy?" as without zoning, homeowners, businesses, and factories could be right next to each other.

Overall the point I was trying to get at “if they follow the rules, then I don’t care if they’re next to my house”. Ideally there would be rules protecting me from annoyance such as noise pollution. Zoning rules would allow those that require more lenient regulations their own place to stay (note: this isn’t a NIMBY argument. It’s a “follow the rules” thing, which ideally should be constructed in a way to make it possible to build these while still not making it horrible for everyone else living there, and not putting any other restrictions just because I don’t want it next to my house).

I see the rules more as an instrument for guaranteeing a certain quality of life and less as an end unto themselves.

GP point, I believe, is not to ban them as long as the conform to zoning code. If zone code allows his neighbor to convert to a nightclub, good!

:/ I understand the reasoning for zoning and don't have a better solution. Thus I am generally for zoning.

I was responding to (middle OP?) "Why shouldn't land owners be able to build whatever they want on their own property? It's not your backyard, it's your neighbors property" and "As long as they follow the noise and disturbance ordinances, then sure."

Those former seems to suggest getting rid of zoning altogether which would cause horrible negative externalities IMO. The latter assumes noise disturbances would somehow balance the market which I highly doubt.

"It technically complies with the law"seems like cold comfort. Anyway you're just moving the locus of struggle from the approval process to the zoning regulations, since anyone with their head screwed on is going to demand that the city council use the law to block a development like this.

Yeah, I understand that zoning is often used as a way to discourage building things that people don’t want built. But my idea was that hopefully there’s a way to make zoning “work”. I have no inherent issues with a nightclub; I just think it would be better from a noise perspective to put it downtown where it’s not going to bother other people.

I don't really get what you mean; that's the whole point of zoning and an approval process. What's your objection to that way of doing things?

Nothing, as long as it's not abused to make sure that nothing ever gets built.

It could be a night-chess-club, after all?

If the area is zoned to permit such facilities then perhaps having a house their isn't the best idea. Areas zoned residential don't have such issues.

His exact words were "Why shouldn't land owners be able to build whatever they want on their own property?" Zoning also prevents this sort of absolute freedom.

The problem is that you are regulating a proxy rather than the externaility.

Having laws about quiet times and public smells prevents the nightclub and abbattoir from locating there without blocking usages.

So actually, Japan does something like this. Residences can be built pretty much anywhere (except near super heavy industry), because their zoning is all about how much of a nuisance something is. They also don’t have strict usage restrictions like Euclidean zoning in the states. So for example, if something is zoned for medium commercial (making that up), you can build everything from commercial “down” (so to residential), which allows mixed use too.

And let’s not be flippant. Nobody wants the ability to build anything anywhere, but it’s eaually absurd to not build much of anything at all. You can have density and affordable housing and a good quality of life; lots of cities do it already!

There was a fantastic post about how zoning in Japan works a couple months ago: http://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-japanese-zonin...

I don't think I'm being flippant. The guy asked why you shouldn't have absolute freedom to build whatever you please on land you own.

Which cities are the best examples?

Because that is in nobody's interest. Your neighbour would also suffer if you decided to set up a poultry farm on your property.

You can't live in a happy, healthy community without giving up a little bit of control in favour of the common good.

Right, and that's why zoning boards should stop your neighbors from building poultry farms in their backyards.

Land ownership is never absolute because it isn’t the product of human endeavor, so owning it means you either violently excluded people from it, formalized that violence through law, or bought it after one of the above had happened. That’s why I can’t build a big laser beam on my land and use it to set your house on fire, among other things.

Playing devil's advocate here (which is my way of saying "bring on the downvotes"): because what they build can still generate negative externalities that affect their neighbors. So even though a 50-story building might be in compliance with zoning laws, it still blocks neighbor's access to a valuable, albeit non-essential resource (sunlight, cool ocean breeze, etc.) that probably factored into the price the original owner paid for their property.

In other words, you are free to build whatever you want on your own property, as long as its effects don't negatively impact the value of mine. (I personally will never block developments, but I think I would have a right to be pissed off as hell if something like that happened, still.)

> In other words, you are free to build whatever you want on your own property, as long as its effects don't negatively impact the value of mine.

That is nowhere near a good enough rule. What if I buy commercial retail property in a bustling district, but over a few years the bustling industry shifts half a mile away, leaving my district with less foot traffic and thus negatively impacting the value of my property? Have those developers harmed me in a way that should be illegal?

You may be tempted to say “well, no, obviously that’s different.” And indeed, it is obviously different. But the challenge is coming up with a rule that actually works without needing you or someone to decide on a case by case basis what is “obviously” an exception.

And you’re (Not you personally) free to do what like on your property barring negative outcomes for the entire community. Imposing restrictions on land you don’t own certainly falls in that category.

Hence the stalemate I guess.

So first of all, you don’t have a right not to live in a shadow. Millions of people in cities all over the world deal with it every day. It’s not that bad (tbh it probably helps AC bills too). You have certain rights when you buy property, but “a view” isn’t one of them. If you want scenery, move to the country. It’s gorgeous!

Second, it’s frustrating that people only think of themselves. “What about my view?” What about the hundreds or thousands of people who can’t live near their jobs or their kids’ schools because of your precious view? What about the people who will be forced to drive in and get stuck in traffic, people who probably can’t bike because they’re forced to live in another town only reachable by a long highway trip? What about the people who are forced to pay higher and higher rents because everyone blocks development everywhere in the city?

Screw your view, honestly.

I can understand this point of view, and I don't own a house so I'm not really "defending" anything here. I'd love for housing to be cheaper and for more people to build in SF.

However, think about how you'd feel if you bought a house and spent most of your life savings on it (like most are forced to), only to find that it drops in value dramatically putting you underwater on the payments. It's not just about their "view". They paid for amenities which (whether we like it or not) include the view and environment.

I don't even have a solution - but it's not so simple as "give up your view so more people can live near their jobs".

If you buy a property that has a magnificent view, but has an empty building lot next door, or an old dilapidated home ripe for being pulled down, then, in a transparent zoning situation, you'll be fully aware that you may be built out and you'll have no rights to prevent it.

That means you'll pay less for your property, and you get to enjoy your view for as long as it lasts, and keep some money in your pocket.

If on the other hand you do have all sorts of rights to prevent anyone from building out your view then that same house will cost you a lot more - perhaps more than you'll be able to afford.

Either of these situations seems fair, because you know the rules in advance.

Crappy situations arise when the rules are not clear. In that case, you don't really know how much you should pay for that house, and you may suffer immense angst when your view disappears.

That’s the other thing: real estate is not a guaranteed investment. If you invest money in a house and its value goes down, I’m sorry, but that’s the risk you take. A home is not a guaranteed investment vehicle, despite that being the outcome when NIMBYs vote and craft policy to make it so.

Also, I don’t think people’s home values drop all that dramatically when new housing is built. We’ve been putting this off for decades, but we’ve also been artificially inflating housing prices. Maybe your tiny bungalow ISN’T actually worth $500,000. Maybe decades of bad local policy have ballooned the price of your house at the expense of others.

And even so, even if building housing makes your house decrease in value, that’s still not a good reason to prevent development. I care much more they cities are healthy and plentiful housing than I do about some Boomers who got lucky with when they bought into the real estate market.

The solution is actually remarkably simple: build more housing. We did it before; plenty of other countries with more sensible zoning laws do it. There aren’t enough places for people to live. We can either start killing people, or we can put up some walls. Personally, I’m a fan of buildings.

Edit: typos (phone)

>>That’s the other thing: real estate is not a guaranteed investment.

The types of people the parent is describing don't buy real estate as an investment. They buy it as an asset. And for most Americans, their house is their most valuable asset.

So can you not spare a shred of sympathy that they are hyper-conscious about what happens to the value of that asset?

Can you not spare a shred of sympathy for people who want to live in the city they work in but can’t because property owners won’t let them? Sorry, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who actively block building new housing because “screw you, got mine”. (Also, building housing doesn’t just tank the value of your home, trust me.)

>>Can you not spare a shred of sympathy for people who want to live in the city they work in but can’t because property owners won’t let them?

Of course I can. My sympathy goes both ways.

>> (Also, building housing doesn’t just tank the value of your home, trust me.)

I'm not talking about simply increasing the supply of housing. The specific example we are discussing is a new skyscraper blocking the view from an existing one.

In which case the property value should be fine. As far as view goes, I believe I addressed that further up (but to recap: thoughts and prayers for people who are so burdened by others having a place to live).

I agree with you in that I still think the right thing to do is build.

I also think it's really easy to say "sorry, you fucked up when you spent all your money on a house" if it's someone else. These aren't all "Boomers who got lucky" - they are also millennials buying their houses today at current rates.

I think we have to have more empathy for these people if we want to make progress.

If you can show me that building more housing causes everyone else’s property values to fall, I’ll believe you. Until then, these are the exact same arguments people use to prevent building any housing.

Remember, this all rests on the assumption that building housing necessarily depresses property values, and that isn’t a guarantee. You can tell because it goes further than that. It’s hard to build any housing at all. My city had about 100,000 people in it. I know some smart urban planners and they estimate it would take about 20,000 to 30,000 new units to stabilize our rental market. Not drive prices down, just stabilize. But we can’t even build ONE apartment building, let alone tens of thousands of units. Even if more housing would drive property values down (which it doesn’t necessarily), it would take so much housing before it ever got to that point.

And once again, we can have empathy and we can build housing. I promise one or two apartment buildings isn’t going to ruin grandma and grandpa’s home value. I promise.

>>You have certain rights when you buy property, but “a view” isn’t one of them.

I have a right to what I pay for. This is simply inarguable.

In most highrises, the view tends to make up a significant portion of the value. This is why units become more expensive the higher up they are: the view is better from a higher altitude.

So essentially, when a developer comes and builds another highrise next door, they are destroying a big part of the value of the original highrise units.

So, if I have a right to what I pay for, and someone is doing something to negatively affect that, the NIMBY argument becomes rather straight-forward.

(Again, these aren't my actual views. I'm simply saying I can sympathize with NIMBYs, even though I despise them.)

Because that's what most people want. Total freedom is anarchy.

Air rights.

No, why should they?