> No one is micromanaging the living spaces of other neighbors.
Your statement above seems quite incorrect. I was thinking that most people in the U.S. can't build an accessory dwelling unit in their backyard for their grandmother. Most people in the U.S. can't build a 400 square foot house on their land. Most people can't convert their house into a duplex or a triplex. Most people can't run a low traffic specialty retail or service business out of their house. None of these are safety issues.
You mentioned variances, which can be requested for things like the above. But that's my main point, why should these things require variances? "taking into consideration everyone's local concerns" as you mentioned. Processes like this take away people's freedom to modify their house like in the above examples, without good reason.
This is what I was referring to. Why should the approval of other people be required to make the above modifications to a property you own?
Maybe this is the main thing that we disagree on. It seems like micromanaging to me.
I still don't think you get where I'm coming from when I mentioned Japan. I'm not in favor of developers, and I don't think my ideas lead to that. Did you look into how the Japanese do zoning? I'm guessing you didn't, because all you said to me was "If you like Japan, go there." That just seems reactionary. Japanese homeowners could make all of the modifications I mentioned above without needing permission. It's a good system. Has it's advantages. I think that sometimes people are afraid of change.
Some of the stuff you typed in your two replies was interesting, but doesn't seem to narrow down what we are discussing. I don't think the dictionary definitions helped.
There are several reasons that zoning and variances work.
First is scale. Very few one-off items will have a big effect. But when nearly everyone does it, it entirely changes the loads on the infrastructure, character of the community, etc.
Adding 2x-3x the residents to existing plots will add similar loads to the roads, water, sewage, and services infrastructure. These boil down to very real costs, and if not properly managed, including raising taxes as it happens, will seriously degrade the town. Limiting this is not micromanaging, it is managing.
The other is the direct effect on the neighbors. This happened with my grandparent's house, a one floor ranch built in the ~1950s overlooks the Hudson river north of NYC. Someone bought it and wanted to turn it into a 2-story. There is another large house further up the ridge overlooking the roof, the river, and the hills beyond. This change would have destroyed their view of the river and hills to the west. Despite the new owner's significant funds and lobbying, the request was denied and it was sold on.
I think this is an excellent result. The owner of my GP's house would have imposed a massive external loss on the neighbor.
Sure, there are some neighbors who are absolute asses and will deny everything for spite, and that can be as annoying as micromanaging. At the same time, I do not consider it to be my right to do whatever TF I want, and the hell with how it affects my neighbor - and in particular, I want the same treatment - golden rule.
The problem is that developers DO work by the different golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules. They are basically growth hackers (and not in a good way). Any hole in the rules they WILL attempt to exploit in order extract maximum profit from a plot of land.
The developer off my back lot line? He's not big, he's a guy from another state who builds additions, and thinks this massive development, with which he has zero experience will be his big retirement payday. Considering the environment and geography issues, I think he is stupid money and that serious developers passed on the lot. But that doesn't stop every random builder with dreams.
So, as soon as you allow general conversion from single to duplex/triplex, that is guaranteed what you will get within a few years. Sure, some of it will be people just building a second unit for their family to live on the same plot. But most of it will be builders buying up lots that can then be built out. And they will do it in the way that makes them the most profit, usually short-term - this means regard for the neighbors is zero beyond what is required and enforced.
So, while these ideas sound wonderful and egalitarian, the reality is that being more loose about it inevitably leads directly do developer abuses and destruction of what has been created.
There may be solutions to this, but if it was easy, it would have already been done.
iIn general I think we have in common a dislike of developers. I'll talk more about that below, and also why I don't like the current system. I do believe we could make changes for the better.
> Adding 2x-3x the residents to existing plots will add similar loads to the roads, water, sewage, and services infrastructure.
Dense city neighborhoods, even poor ones, are increasingly subsidizing less dense areas because there are not enough taxpayers per mile of infrastructure in the less dense suburbs [0]. Due to sprawl there are more roads, sewers, etc, and not nearly as many people per mile to maintain them. Suburbs built in the 70s will be facing maintenance costs soon that many of them can't afford. Transfer payments already happen through county, state and federal budgets [1]. Another reason to say that every taxpayer has a stake in zoning, not just homeowners.
Plus there's a lot of upzoning that is already happening, and infrastructure hasn't been a deal breaker. Tacoma is replacing single family with low-scale residential allowing up to three units [2], and they are not the only city doing this. Others are allowing accessory dwelling units on any property if setbacks allow. In fact California just passed a law that will require that all cities in the state to allow up to four housing units in place of single-family homes, and the ability to split single-family lots [3].
> These boil down to very real costs, and if not properly managed, including raising taxes as it happens.
Before the pandemic the trend of people wanting to live in cities was pushing a lot of poor folks into some suburbs, and you could see things deteriorating over the years in these areas with the poorer tax base, negative feedback loops making things worse. I've seen areas with lots of abandoned strip malls. I've also seen subdivisions overloaded with cars on the street, in driveways, and on lawns because the neighborhoods weren't designed for three or four or more commuters per house, but everyone needs a car to get anywhere. Some are saying that eventually many suburbs will be like this, populated by the poor, the ghettos of the future, extended families and groups of friends sharing large houses, subdivisions and suburbs going broke, people with money fleeing to other more interesting and better maintained places.
> my grandparent's house, a one floor ranch built in the ~1950s overlooks the Hudson river north of NYC. Someone bought it and wanted to turn it into a 2-story. There is another large house further up the ridge overlooking the roof, the river, and the hills beyond. This change would have destroyed their view of the river and hills to the west. Despite the new owner's significant funds and lobbying, the request was denied and it was sold on.
It seems more fair to have consistent rules, like two stories allowed, certain setbacks, etc. than to allow neighbors to arbitrarily decide these things. I don't even understand how that is constitutional, the law and due process in this case being "lets see what your neighbors happen to think today". There should be the same rules for everyone.
Maybe the people who want a view should buy the lot in front of them, if they want it that bad. That's why a water front lot costs much more than water view. Or build their own second floor, or rooftop porch, etc. They had the benefit of the view for a while even thought they didn't own it. It wasn't taken from them. They are not entitled to this. It was never theirs to begin with. They knew there was a house in front of them that could build another floor.
> I think this is an excellent result. The owner of my GP's house would have imposed a massive external loss on the neighbor.
And now the neighbor has imposed a massive external loss on the owner of your GP's house, the loss of a second floor that other people are allowed, for either the view they don't own or the money they think the view might be worth to a future buyer.
Furthermore homeowners have externalized other costs associated with their profits by making it harder for others to find places to live and work while simultaneously benefiting from municipal growth.
Real estate as an investment has made housing more unaffordable. This amounts to a national ponzi scheme, given that prices can't outpace inflation forever without something happening eventually. Our kids, or grandkids, and taxpayers in general, will probably have to deal with a crash in prices at some point, declining suburbs and the infrastructure these communities won't be able to maintain, underfunded HOAs in disrepair, more abandoned shopping centers, more taxpayer bailouts, etc. These are all externalized future costs born by other people to prop up current homeowner values.
I understand that the current system incentivizes rising residential real estate prices and a lot of people have most of their nest egg in their home equity, and/or are highly leveraged, and/or spend way too much time working to pay their mortgage. So I understand why people do this. Water view is worth a lot more than no water view. Neighbor against neighbor.
> Sure, there are some neighbors who are absolute asses and will deny everything for spite, and that can be as annoying as micromanaging.
I agree, but wouldn't push the point. I'd call things like this an outgrowth of a bad system. That's the problem with giving people power over others, it will be abused. I've heard other anecdotes, like the neighbor of my dentist who fought him building a garage like other people had, apparently because she thought a garage in his yard would make her yard look smaller.
HOAs can be another big problem in this regard, empowering petty people to harass their neighbors. There's often a strong push for uniformity in many of these places, with not much acceptance of anything different, even down to the color of curtains and the type of grass. For decades most new home construction has been in developer subdivisions subject to HOA rules.
The bad attitude of so many homeowners is plainly visible on the Next Door website, their disdain for "less desirable" people, opposition to extending bus routes with disregard for the difficulty their hired help has getting back and forth to clean their toilets or whatever, the people who want to keep non-locals away from "their" non-locally funded beach, the people who want more jobs to help grow the area but don't want to allow more housing for the janitors, teachers, clerks, nurses, and everyone else who keeps the lights on, the people who want to remove the benches in the park so that "those people" don't sit there, the people who don't want anyone economically different to live near them, etc. Even worse is the historic connection between zoning and racism, which is still alive today. People often make decisions based on emotion, not reason and logic.
So one effect of the current rules is to enable bad people to do bad things to other people.
> I do not consider it to be my right to do whatever TF I want, and the hell with how it affects my neighbor - and in particular, I want the same treatment - golden rule.
You invoked this in defense of doing someone doing something bad to their neighbor, blocking them from an modifying their house. I assume you meant that the neighbor should have gone out of their way to not block the other person's view? As I mentioned before, I don't understand why they think they are entitled to something they didn't pay for. It seems that you want others to go out of your way for you, but I'm not sure how you feel about going out of your way for people who want something different.
As much as I'd argue with you against this, I can't say that you are completely wrong. Part of me wishes I could prohibit people from getting dogs that bark, and installing floodlights. Everyone has an axe to grind. Everyone is different. It's takes a certain amount of give and take, and compromise, to live near to others. It's not easy to codify. Perhaps that is why so many want to segregate, to be surrounded only by people just like them?
> The problem is that developers DO work by the different golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules. They are basically growth hackers (and not in a good way). Any hole in the rules they WILL attempt to exploit in order extract maximum profit from a plot of land.
I have something to run by you. Maybe single use single family zoning actually helps developers, to the detriment of everyone else.
For the last several or more decades developers have been buying land on the outskirts of towns, clear cutting it and building a bunch of houses as quickly as possible, nothing else, then handing it off to a homeownwers association, so that neither the developer nor the town have to spend any extra money on amenities. The developer makes their money, then looks for another subdivision to build. What could be more convenient? The houses all look the same, because that is cheapest. Many of them are not well made. These subdivision neighborhoods are all pretty much identical, just house after house, empty streets except for the occasional dog walker, a car being required to get to the nearest strip mall, just past the nearest gas station, everything built since at sometime in the 70s seems to follow this pattern.
Perhaps this is why single familt single use zoning is so prevalant across the country, because that is convenient for developers who want to go on building more subdivisions. Single family homes are the best way to get the most markup per housed person. Either that, or apartment complexes that look like people warehouses. Maybe defending the current zoning regulations plays right into their hands. Works out nice for banks and car companies, too. Developers don't care what these neighborhood are like to live in or the long term problems, as long as they can turn a good profit this year.
Many people, myself included, find all these new corporate developed neighborhoods to be alienating, even dystopian. You say you are against developers but they are the ones who we're currently optimized for. They are making money off the current rules, and leaving behind so many externalities - not just financial but so many quality of life issues, commutes for home owners and service workers, the loss of neighborhood gathering spots, the deteriorated relationships with neighbors and small business owners, serendipity walking down the street, dependence on cars, decades of working to pay for this stuff, kids with nothing to do, insular, isolating, monoculture, etc.
Now we even have the problem of hedge funds buying up housing! I am truly dismayed thinking where that trend leads, given the influence the rich have over politicians to warp things more to their profitability without regard for personal or societal damage.
I'm expressing some of my dislikes above... In the spirit of communicating my fears on this issue, which we haven't addressed yet.
It seems to me that you are arguing to keep things the same, to let developers continue to build these inhumane (to many of us) places to live. Yuck. Keeping things the same sucks so much for so many people.
> So, as soon as you allow general conversion from single to duplex/triplex, most of it will be builders buying up lots that can then be built out.
I would say this happens of how regulated housing is. Only developers have the expertise to navigate the system. That's why often corporations are in favor of regulations, they know that individuals and small companies can't deal with the overhead. Regulatory capture. It did not used to be this way.
Regulation for non-safety issues adds a considerable amount to the price of a new house. We could halve those costs, at least. Other places do. Some places have 99 year leases on the land and houses are depreciating assets, like cars, which people often have rebuild to taste, some every time they move. In some countries the average person pays off the average house in three years. Lots of things are possible, just saying.
Somewhat related, I would be game to tax primary residences differently than investor owned property. Houses and neighborhoods should be for people to live in, not for the rentier class to make money.
> So, while these ideas sound wonderful and egalitarian, the reality is that being more loose about it inevitably leads directly do developer abuses and destruction of what has been created.
Do you not agree that developers have been driving the last several or more decades of building, given that most new construction has been subdivisions and corporate apartment complexes during that time?
It's become almost impossible to do otherwise, based on the current regulations you are in favor of.
I feel like we've been letting developers, corporations, and profit destroy neighborhoods in this country for decades, it's causing significant problems, and that we need to make changes.
> There may be solutions to this, but if it was easy, it would have already been done.
It has been done! There are other places that have solved this. They don't have the problems with developers or housing costs that we have. We didn't have these problems in the past. I'm encouraged that there are more and more places in this country making changes.
Of course those making money off the current system will see these changes as a financial threat and continue to resist. Many others are in favor of these changes for numerous reasons, and will continue to push for them.
I apologize for any erroneous assumptions I may have made above about your position while I was expressing my dissatisfaction above with the way things are.
I guess we could talk about how current zoning regulations make it difficult for individuals to build new housing and have resulted in more subdivisions and apartment complexes, how this has changed neighborhoods for the worse over the last several decades, and the belief that upzoning and/or a better system is not possible.
I look forward to what you have to say about all this.
Your statement above seems quite incorrect. I was thinking that most people in the U.S. can't build an accessory dwelling unit in their backyard for their grandmother. Most people in the U.S. can't build a 400 square foot house on their land. Most people can't convert their house into a duplex or a triplex. Most people can't run a low traffic specialty retail or service business out of their house. None of these are safety issues.
You mentioned variances, which can be requested for things like the above. But that's my main point, why should these things require variances? "taking into consideration everyone's local concerns" as you mentioned. Processes like this take away people's freedom to modify their house like in the above examples, without good reason.
This is what I was referring to. Why should the approval of other people be required to make the above modifications to a property you own?
Maybe this is the main thing that we disagree on. It seems like micromanaging to me.
I still don't think you get where I'm coming from when I mentioned Japan. I'm not in favor of developers, and I don't think my ideas lead to that. Did you look into how the Japanese do zoning? I'm guessing you didn't, because all you said to me was "If you like Japan, go there." That just seems reactionary. Japanese homeowners could make all of the modifications I mentioned above without needing permission. It's a good system. Has it's advantages. I think that sometimes people are afraid of change.
Some of the stuff you typed in your two replies was interesting, but doesn't seem to narrow down what we are discussing. I don't think the dictionary definitions helped.