upvote
Why don't we let people who like living in dense housing build and live in dense housing? And leave those who don't in peace? Right now we only do the second one but make the first one illegal.
reply
Sure, we do let people do that. The thing that's objectionable is when a suburban neighborhood is rezoned by people who live hundreds of miles away, and developers get the green light to build towers there. Why do people who don't live in a place think they're entitled to change the zoning of that place?

What's to stop them from saying that it should now be zoned for industrial, and a chemical treatment plant can open up next door to a school? It's the same line of thinking.

reply
> Why do people who don't live in a place think they're entitled to change the zoning of that place?

Why do people who don't own the land think they're entitled to tell the actual owners what they can build?

> It's the same line of thinking.

It is not. This is a made up slippery slope.

reply
When someone buys land, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do to it, subject to the zoning laws that were in effect at the time of purchase, or passed by a majority of voters in that area after purchase.
reply
Not in California we don’t let people do that. The demand for condos far outstrips the amount of land zoned for them
reply
>And leave those who don't in peace?

That's not what's happening.

People who are living like that are being invaded by high density people who want to live in high density in their communities. They want to take over and force people out.

And generally they just want to flip. Find somewhere cheap and make it expensive to make money by lowering everybody's quality of life and calling it progress.

reply
> They want to take over and force people out.

How do you "force" people out? The existing owners have to sell land, and once they do the new owners have as much right to decide as the other residents. Are there thugs going door to door forcing sellers to sign papers?

Allowing higher density construction doesn't mean higher density must get built there. That's still up to the property owner to decide. True freedom.

reply
Property taxes and cost of living causing people who own to be priced out and forced to sell their homes because of bankruptcy.

And the occasional eminent domain.

reply
Property taxes? Not in California (prop 13).
reply
and the YIMBY (but really somebody else's back yard) yell loudly about this property tax carveout and how terrible it is for their density goals
reply
And that yelling is their free speech. As is your complaint in response.
reply
> It drives up costs.

How?

Upkeep is arguably more expensive for a detached house, and suburbs make cars almost mandatory.

reply
It's an ironic comment because this article mostly talks about California, which is already one of the most expensive places to live and the most NIMBY. Every other state in the US is generally cheaper to live in. The places that are cost as much as California are just as NIMBY and heavily influenced by Californians (Hawaii) or is the cultural and financial center of the country (NYC).
reply
I suspect that prices and NIMBYism are driven by the higher classes, not Californians.

Also, Hawaii is expensive for reasons way beyond the reach of NIMBYs, and highly influenced by travel corporations.

reply
Look up HOA fees for a condo building.

Look up property taxes, cost of living expenses, and overheads like parking, schools, etc.

Is NYC the cheapest place to live in the country?

Is there a cost of living chart: density vs. cost?

reply
> Look up property taxes, cost of living expenses, and overheads like parking, schools, etc.

I currently live in an arguably not very dense city, in the suburbs. I pay thousands of dollars in property taxes. I must own two cars to serve the whole family, for things as basic as going grocery shopping. My HOA is almost a thousand dollars a year. A couple years ago I had to replace the roof, at a cost of several thousands of dollars.

I had none of these problems when I was living in a more dense city, and on top of that, I could actually walk to the nearest coffee shop.

> Is NYC the cheapest place to live in the country?

NYC is dense because it appeals to more people, and the more people that move to the city, the more expensive it gets, precisely because there are not enough homes.

Are you assuming that less dense cities are more desirable to live in? Is Anchorage a more appealing city to live in than NYC?

reply
I agree from a personal perspective, but sprawl is also terrible in its own way. The real problem is too many people.

In any case, it shouldn’t be illegal to build either dense or sparse housing.

reply
Unless you're the only one who thinks that, you'd think there would be some centralized advocacy for your position, is what I'm saying.
reply