Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs • Hacker News Board

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#41

Post by ancap » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 7:31 PM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #22

ancap wrote: post #19

The chief problem with the idea of NIMBY is that it is not really the concerned party's back yard. A more accurate term for the concept might be NIMNBY (Not In My Neighbors' Back Yard). NIMBY is an affront to the concept of property rights. But, some say, the concerned party has the legitimate concern that development on a neighboring property will negatively impact the value of their own property. While an understan…

I rather think there is a decent point in there, but on closer inspection this argument that the ownership of property should give you unfettered ability to do whatever you want falls apart. If the person next door wants to run a private, non-commercial meat processing plant (abattoir) then I think it's fair to object. If they wanted to setup a rifle range that ran throughout the day and night, this would also be a v…

The problems you raise are all solved by the theory of homesteading. No additional regulations or zoning laws necessary.

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#42

Post by cyber » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 7:33 PM UTC

nwah1 wrote: post #29

Everyone likes the idea of carrots. But I prefer sticks. Landowners get windfall gains from surrounding development and government services. We should have a high land value tax, to tax these unearned gains, which would ensure that only people able to make productive use of prime land will hold onto it. For instance, a subway stop will boost the surrounding land value of every property by hundreds of thousands of dol…

Excepting that in SF the "everyone" does not want the land owners to make productive use of it: they want the status quo. (Well, the status quo of what the remember as being the "high point".)

Having witnessed protests that occurred midway through the reconstruction of offramps, (meaning an existing ramp was torn down, and they were half done rebuilding it), it's not so much NIMBY, but NBAA: Never Build Anything, Anywhere.

The only way that higher taxes would be beneficial is if SF landowners were actually allowed the freedom to upgrade their properties. Zoning, especially height restrictions (40' max over most of SF), as well as endless red tape, make it really hard to make productive use of prime land. Regardless if it's the original owner or new buyer.

( A new buyer is granted some slight advantage, but not enough to be meaningful.)

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#43

Post by jvm » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 7:40 PM UTC

hiou wrote: post #18

jvm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree that development creates negative externalities which are legitimate complaints for neighbors. However, restrictions on development create a regressive tax in the form of high rents, which is, as the article describes, distributed broadly. What's needed is some sort of cost-benefit balance between the two. For example, I rent a 400 sq foot apartment in SF for $3k. The operating and capital cost of…

Do you happen to have another example of an city with a similar weather and employment profile that is significantly cheaper? Regardless of development? Is there unanimous agreement that high rents(which are occurring throughout the US and abroad right now) are solely due to lack of development?

This is a pretty good resource: http://marketurbanism.com/2015/11/05/how-land-use-regulation...

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#44

Post by davidw » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 7:55 PM UTC

ancap wrote: post #40

davidw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most of us have some fuzzy concepts about some things being 'a step too far', but I'll admit to not having a great idea where or how to draw the line. It would suck to have an outdoor, late night heavy metal venue open up in an adjacent property, for instance. OTOH, a lot of the limits on housing height and density and car requirements seem like bunk to me. And I'd rather live closer than farther to basic ame…

Your example is already a solved problem with the theory of homesteading. Whoever homesteaded the property first has the right to enjoy their property in the manner they originally possessed it. In this case, the outdoor, heavy metal music would be a trespass upon adjacent properties (unless they received an easement). Conversely in homesteading theory, if the outdoor, late night heavy metal venue was there first, yo…

Ok, but what about...

Someone:

* buys an apartment and decides to turn it into an office for a few accountants.

* buys a house and decides to build a corner store, like this: https://goo.gl/maps/jcHex9ndsFv

* buys a house and tears it down to create a small used clothing store.

* buys a house and turns it into a small restaurant.

* buys a house and turns it into a bar.

My guess is that people are going to complain about some of these things, but not others. However, if you don't allow anyone to change things ever, you get a very rigid and brittle city. What would we do with the stables if they had never been allowed to change into something else?

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#45

Post by ancap » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 8:43 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #44

ancap wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your example is already a solved problem with the theory of homesteading. Whoever homesteaded the property first has the right to enjoy their property in the manner they originally possessed it. In this case, the outdoor, heavy metal music would be a trespass upon adjacent properties (unless they received an easement). Conversely in homesteading theory, if the outdoor, late night heavy metal venue was there first, yo…

Ok, but what about... Someone: * buys an apartment and decides to turn it into an office for a few accountants. * buys a house and decides to build a corner store, like this: https://goo.gl/maps/jcHex9ndsFv * buys a house and tears it down to create a small used clothing store. * buys a house and turns it into a small restaurant. * buys a house and turns it into a bar. My guess is that people are going to complain ab…

I'm not sure what the issue is with any of those scenarios. If someone rightfully obtains a property they are in the same position as the original homesteader.

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#46

Post by davidw » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 8:50 PM UTC

ancap wrote: post #45

davidw wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but what about... Someone: * buys an apartment and decides to turn it into an office for a few accountants. * buys a house and decides to build a corner store, like this: https://goo.gl/maps/jcHex9ndsFv * buys a house and tears it down to create a small used clothing store. * buys a house and turns it into a small restaurant. * buys a house and turns it into a bar. My guess is that people are going to complain ab…

I'm not sure what the issue is with any of those scenarios. If someone rightfully obtains a property they are in the same position as the original homesteader.

So... the original homesteader builds a house somewhere.

Other houses are built nearby. It's a quiet neighborhood.

I buy the original homesteader house and open my heavy metal venue? And that's ok? I bet the neighbors won't be happy.

I get the concept of "you chose to build your house next to a heavy metal venue and they were there first, so you can put a sock in it", but it's kind of incomplete.

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#47

Post by ancap » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #46

ancap wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what the issue is with any of those scenarios. If someone rightfully obtains a property they are in the same position as the original homesteader.

So... the original homesteader builds a house somewhere. Other houses are built nearby. It's a quiet neighborhood. I buy the original homesteader house and open my heavy metal venue? And that's ok? I bet the neighbors won't be happy. I get the concept of "you chose to build your house next to a heavy metal venue and they were there first, so you can put a sock in it", but it's kind of incomplete.

>I buy the original homesteader house and open my heavy metal venue? And that's ok? I bet the neighbors won't be happy.

No, that's not ok. The neighbor's have homesteaded their property (or obtained it from the original homesteaders) and the noise would be a trespass on their properties.

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#48

Post by davidw » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 10:36 PM UTC

ancap wrote: post #47

davidw wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... the original homesteader builds a house somewhere. Other houses are built nearby. It's a quiet neighborhood. I buy the original homesteader house and open my heavy metal venue? And that's ok? I bet the neighbors won't be happy. I get the concept of "you chose to build your house next to a heavy metal venue and they were there first, so you can put a sock in it", but it's kind of incomplete.

>I buy the original homesteader house and open my heavy metal venue? And that's ok? I bet the neighbors won't be happy. No, that's not ok. The neighbor's have homesteaded their property (or obtained it from the original homesteaders) and the noise would be a trespass on their properties.

How about a punk music bar that sees people coming and going at all hours. It's soundproofed, though and let's say the patrons are fairly quiet outside, although they sure look out of place in the neighborhood.

The neighbors would not be happy.

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#49

Post by recoil » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 10:45 PM UTC

ancap wrote: post #19

The chief problem with the idea of NIMBY is that it is not really the concerned party's back yard. A more accurate term for the concept might be NIMNBY (Not In My Neighbors' Back Yard). NIMBY is an affront to the concept of property rights. But, some say, the concerned party has the legitimate concern that development on a neighboring property will negatively impact the value of their own property. While an understan…

The other useful term I've heard for these people is BANANAs - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

Re: Clever reforms can reduce the power of NIMBYs and cut housing costs

#50

Post by mc32 » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 2:22 AM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #20

ancap wrote: post #19

The chief problem with the idea of NIMBY is that it is not really the concerned party's back yard. A more accurate term for the concept might be NIMNBY (Not In My Neighbors' Back Yard). NIMBY is an affront to the concept of property rights. But, some say, the concerned party has the legitimate concern that development on a neighboring property will negatively impact the value of their own property. While an understan…

Backyard in this context means something more akin to neighborhood/city/etc. as opposed to patch of green behoind hous Many property rights are limited in various ways--often by zoning in the case of land. And, typically, those limitations would be known at the time of purchase. Most would agree some level of zoning is reasonable; no incinerators or drilling for oil in residential neighborhoods for example. I actuall…

I like the idea which they mention Massachusetts is bandying about: require cities to set aside areas (maybe proportionally 25% ?) where they will not impose cumbersome building restrictions.