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?
> 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?
(continued in reply below...)
[0] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-publ...
[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-dixmoor-wate...
[2] https://mynorthwest.com/3238968/tacoma-to-finalize-ambitious...
[3] https://apnews.com/article/california-recall-california-laws...