undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgtirloni4y ago0 comments

You should have bought a considerable amount of land next to your property too then. Just like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. I'm sure no one would complain about that since, you know, it'd be yours and not someone else's.

0 comments

8 comments · 3 top-level

nrmitchi4y ago· 3 in thread

I'm not here to defend unnecessary zoning restrictions, but your argument here is that the right to not be affected by the externalities of someone else's decisions should be limited to the uber-wealthy?.

It's completely reasonable to believe that a given person should be capable of quiet enjoyment of their property without having to purchase everything remotely close to it.

ladon864y ago

If you want to live in a very desirable area and you also want to have very few neighbors, you should have to pay for that luxury. Right now that luxury is effectively subsidized for a few people who are “grandfathered in”, thanks to the market distortion created by zoning.

epistasis4y ago

Why should somebody be allowed to keep others out of property that they are not paying for. I find your contention competent wrong on all counts.

nrmitchi4y ago

That cuts both ways; why should somebody be allowed to induce a negative impact on property that they are not paying for?

1 more reply

isoskeles4y ago· 2 in thread

"You should've been filthy rich like Bill Gates!"

Really?

epistasis4y ago

If a lot of people want to be in an area, but you want an area with fewer people, why should your single vote override everybody else's desires? Simply move elsewhere, as nobody has the right to interfere with the free association of others.

8note4y ago

Why should people who don't live there now get a vote?

1 more reply

ergocoder4y ago

> You should have bought a considerable amount of land next to your property too then.

Your suggestion is much worse. It'd require millions of dollars.

Doing this might also get yelled at by another activist group for buying up all the lands in the city.

A better alternative: we could just join city council and vote to reject any new building.

Not that I agree or disagree with NIMBY, it's just that your suggestion is much worse than the alternative for NIMBY-ists.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse