Politics: J'accuse!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Now zoning is something I've never understood. It's the white trash in me - I think we should all be able to put our trailers whereever we want.

I always imagined you have the only wine cellar in Chelsea.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No, I can see the merit of residential vs. commercial vs. industrial zoning, b/c of the types of traffic and environmental stuff, etc. It's the different types of housing zoning that irritate me. Pure wealth preservation for the haves.

Don't worry. The homeowners associations protect the haves. What other entity in the Great State can foreclose on a homestead for delinquent payment of a small sum? Inwood vs. Harris 736, SW2 632 (Tex.1987)

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Duplicity
AG is trying to say that he's all for helping poor people, but not if they have wings and can fly over and shit on his neighborhood.

While entirely true, this was not within the contemplation of my original post. Good of you to think outside the box in preparing for externalities. When I am king, you shall be my Zoning Czar.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No, I can see the merit of residential vs. commercial vs. industrial zoning, b/c of the types of traffic and environmental stuff, etc. It's the different types of housing zoning that irritate me. Pure wealth preservation for the haves.

I disagree that it's "pure wealth preservation" everywhere. F'rinstance, I would argue that we have a very important collective interest in zoning for high density housing around transit corridors to combat (sub)urban sprawl in locales that are perhaps more heavily populated than yours.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Don't worry. The homeowners associations protect the haves. What other entity in the Great State can foreclose on a homestead for delinquent payment of a small sum? Inwood vs. Harris 736, SW2 632 (Tex.1987)

Yeah, well, the covenants should be invalid as against the public policy of not placing restrictions on property that last beyond the owner.

(You can buy my car, but you have to sign this contract promising never to drive it on any day with a T in it, and no one who buys it from you can drive it on those days either.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Have you read the case? It's fucking ridiculous. I think one of the names in it starts with a "B." It came out not so long after the racial zoning laws were struck down. It upheld the economic (I mean, health and welfare concerned) zoning laws. Because it's OK to despise the poor -- it is their own damn fault. Black people were born black.

This is my point. I can understand why I shouldn't be soaking someone for rent. There's a victim in that one.

I can't understand why I shouldn't be able to build whatever I damn feel like on my property, as long as it's not a health hazard. If I feel like putting my trailer next to -Ty's
McMansion, who cares? If he doesn't like it, he can build a fence. (By the way, I'm not unreasonable, and don't think I should be shooting cans on my property when -Ty's plate glass window is right behind them).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I always imagined you have the only wine cellar in Chelsea.

I appreciate both the lesser and the finer thing in life.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I disagree that it's "pure wealth preservation" everywhere. F'rinstance, I would argue that we have a very important collective interest in zoning for high density housing around transit corridors to combat (sub)urban sprawl in locales that are perhaps more heavily populated than yours.

There's plenty of people 'round here. We're just all sprawled out on our minimum half-acre, can't divide your lot, properties. (Yes, I know the punctuation/grammar in that last sentence is fucked.)

Seriously, I guess I always kinda thought you could build smaller than what is zoned for, but not larger. But, I don't care. If the goal is a free market, buh-bye zoning.

ETA by "smaller" I mean "less dense." Like, that there are minimum lot sizes or maximum # of people who can live in a given unit, but not maximum lot sizes or minimum # of people who can live in a given unit.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
This is my point. I can understand why I shouldn't be soaking someone for rent. There's a victim in that one.

I can't understand why I shouldn't be able to build whatever I damn feel like on my property, as long as it's not a health hazard. If I feel like putting my trailer next to -Ty's
McMansion, who cares? If he doesn't like it, he can build a fence. (By the way, I'm not unreasonable, and don't think I should be shooting cans on my property when -Ty's plate glass window is right behind them).

Yes, dear. I agree that we agree. I was merely suggesting some interesting reading. But you may already have read it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yes, dear. I agree that we agree. I was merely suggesting some interesting reading. But you may already have read it.

Are you thinking Euclid?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't really feel one way or the other about rent control, but why would a small landlord with a long-term renter be at a disadvantage? The property value is going to be based on projected income generation, which has to take into account rent control. But, it seems unlikely that the property value would be less than what the owner paid for it. It just won't quadruple in value overnight like people in SF/NY whatever have seen with their houses.

The landlord was hoping to make some money. He realized that he might not, but if the government says you won't make money, Ty's concerned that the landlord might invest elsewhere, or just sell his property.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
There's plenty of people 'round here. We're just all sprawled out on our minimum half-acre, can't divide your lot, properties. (Yes, I know the punctuation/grammar in that last sentence is fucked.)

Seriously, I guess I always kinda thought you could build smaller than what is zoned for, but not larger. But, I don't care. If the goal is a free market, buh-bye zoning.

ETA by "smaller" I mean "less dense." Like, that there are minimum lot sizes or maximum # of people who can live in a given unit, but not maximum lot sizes or minimum # of people who can live in a given unit.

I'm pretty confused by your reply, which usually is a result of my own failures in articulating myself in the earlier post.

My point was just that it could be in the public interest to zone for density for reasons other than preserving low-density housing and wealth for the haves. The transit corridor idea to me resembled more the zoning for environmental reasons that you or somebody else earlier said was ok. As in, yes you probably lose some fraction of your property's value because of the regs, but all of the city gains value by avoiding enviro hazards in residential areas on the one hand or sprawling single family housing developments chewing up the open spaces and snarling traffic on the other.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
There are all kinds of rules applicable to housing. Why can't landlords rent out housing that is overrun with rats and roaches, with non-functioning plumbing and no heat?

I need to have sex or my head hurts. How come woman get to say no?

[Duplicity]

Not everyone here is insane:



The 11% are people who've been posting on the FB and have missed our little exchange over here.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Duplicity
The 11% are people who've been posting on the FB and have missed our little exchange over here.

No, those were all my votes. I just really like the idea of bedroom checks.