Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If I run a dry cleaning business out of my home, I'll wager my neighbors' collective loss of property value will exceed the increase in my property's value, even if you can show me it's the highest and best use of my particular parcel.
ETA: Lemme 'splain. I think Ty's point is that you're thinking of zoning too much like a negative covenant between individual parcels, and then assuming that the burden on the parcel owned by the guy who wants to run the dry cleaning business must translate into unique benefit (added value) for everybody else --- hence, wealth transfer. But it's not like that. If the benefit applies equally to every house in the neighborhood, it doesn't uniquely raise the property value of non-burdened parcels; it sets an all-property-improving condition, like giving every house in the neighborhood the same view. A use restriction that applies equally throughout a neighborhood can thus be a gain, net net. Believe you me, McMansion neighborhoods wouldn't have such recockulous CC&Rs if they didn't maximize individual parcel sales value.
|
Excuse me, everyone, but I thought zoning wasn't
supposed to be for the purpose of maximizing values for private persons, but to regulate land use for everyone's health, welfare, and safety. Are you all suggesting that zoning in a way that keeps the neighborhood appropriately hoity-toity (i.e., "exclusionary zoning") is really the end all and be-all of zoning everywhere?
I'm not a real estate lawyer, but somehow I really thought that the theory of zoning, and all those court cases, was that one could restrict (and thus devalue) someone's land without a taking occuring because it was being done for health, welfare and safety? Please disabuse me if this is wrong. But this theory also really does sound just like rent control.
Threaded Mode