Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

Re:Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking l... by nrmitchi on Saturday October 23, 2021 @03:43PM (#28971594)

I'm not here to defend unnecessary zoning restrictions, but your argument here is that the right to not be affected by the externalities of someone else's decisions should be limited to the uber-wealthy?.

It's completely reasonable to believe that a given person should be capable of quiet enjoyment of their property without having to purchase everything remotely close to it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking l... by ladon86 on Saturday October 23, 2021 @03:52PM (#28971661)

If you want to live in a very desirable area and you also want to have very few neighbors, you should have to pay for that luxury. Right now that luxury is effectively subsidized for a few people who are “grandfathered in”, thanks to the market distortion created by zoning.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking l... by epistasis on Saturday October 23, 2021 @04:27PM (#28971922)

Why should somebody be allowed to keep others out of property that they are not paying for. I find your contention competent wrong on all counts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking l... by nrmitchi on Saturday October 23, 2021 @04:35PM (#28971992)

That cuts both ways; why should somebody be allowed to induce a negative impact on property that they are not paying for?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking l... by epistasis on Saturday October 23, 2021 @06:15PM (#28972905)

Prohibiting others in an entire area is a far far bigger "negative externality."

[ Parent | on HN ]