Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–55 of 55 posts

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

#51

Post by someguydave »

dingaling wrote: post #7
someguydave wrote: post #5

I'm dubious that a few bribes will give pause to people who consider their homes in jeopardy.

I think the objective is to wash-out the casually-opposed with the bribe of reduced property taxes, leaving the smaller hard-core opposition to be tackled. However they don't offer any novel ideas to address the often-genuine concerns of that hard-core of 'NIMBYs'. Those are the ones opposed on principles or personal experience. For example in my neighbourhood the building of new developments had resulted in hugely i…

I suggest abandoning centralized government planning through zoning and strengthen nuisance torts - if you want to build a big tower in the neighborhood, pay off the neighbors to like it or else they sue.

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

#52

Post by ancap »

davidw wrote: post #48
ancap wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

It's ok for neighbors to not be happy. I can be unhappy if my neighbor paints their house chartreuse, but it doesn't mean I should have any say on what color my neighbor's house should be. For those who want to ensure their neighbor's home is not turned into a punk music bar, they can either buy the neighbor's home and rent it out (kind of like Mark Zuckerberg does), form some sort of HOA, or move into a neighborhood with an existing HOA.

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

#53

Post by davidw »

ancap wrote: post #52
davidw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's ok for neighbors to not be happy. I can be unhappy if my neighbor paints their house chartreuse, but it doesn't mean I should have any say on what color my neighbor's house should be. For those who want to ensure their neighbor's home is not turned into a punk music bar, they can either buy the neighbor's home and rent it out (kind of like Mark Zuckerberg does), form some sort of HOA, or move into a neighborhood…

Fine, but that's pretty far outside of the mainstream these days, so if the neighbors don't like it, they can and will block it, unfortunately.

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

#54

Post by chris_wot »

ancap wrote: post #41
chris_wot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How does it solve the problem? I had to look up the theory on Wikipedia and I don't follow how it resolves the issues I raise.

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

#55

Post by ancap »

chris_wot wrote: post #54
ancap wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How does it solve the problem? I had to look up the theory on Wikipedia and I don't follow how it resolves the issues I raise.

Regarding the meat packing plant, I'm not really sure what the objection is so I'll have to let you explain why someone might object to it. Do they put off some smell? Make a lot of noise? In both of those cases the smell or the noise would be seen as a trespass onto the neighbors' properties.

The rifle range is the same story. The new noise would be considered a trespass on existing neighbor's properties.

Regarding the hoarders, whatever the thing threatening neighboring properties (rodents, smells, diseases) would be considered a trespass.

Once someone has legitimate claim upon a property, they have the right to enjoy that property in the manner in which they obtained it. A lot of the protections of enjoyment of property that people seek through additional legislation would be built in if the laws held greater respect for property rights to begin with.

Post reply on HN