Politics: J'accuse!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How so? If it preserved wealth, there would be no need for zoning, because the highest/best/most valuable use of hte land would be the mcmansion on a half acre. Zoning prevents people from maximizing the value of their land.

Zoning preserves choice. As you said, vote with your feet. Nothign prevents you from buying the lot with the large apartment complex and demolishing it in favor of your trailer home pad. Without zoning one ends up with a mediocre sameness everywhere.

Uh, zoning preserves wealth (i.e., the value of land) by limiting what your neighbors can do. Your McMansion will fall in value if the house across the street is turned into a quadplex, and an apartment building is built on the lot next door. Zoning prevents them from tearing down the houses and doing that.

I think you should read the case.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Uh, zoning preserves wealth (i.e., the value of land) by limiting what your neighbors can do.

Sure, but if you're not limited either, the net effect of zoning is to decrease value/no zoning increases value. It may decrease the value of your house as a house. But the value of hte land, which can be built into townhomes/condos/etc., goes up. net value up. as i said, if the most valuable use was a bunch of mcmansions, why would you need zoning?

And if you eliminate it, nothing really will change. ban homeowners associations, same thing. You'll end up with large chunks of land with ground leases for 99 years or something, designed to guarantee a certain aesthetic. you can't social engineer. why do you think fraternities and sororities exist?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Duplicity
Pomposity wrote it, but he's still looking for a worthy avatar.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but if you're not limited either, the net effect of zoning is to decrease value/no zoning increases value. It may decrease the value of your house as a house. But the value of hte land, which can be built into townhomes/condos/etc., goes up. net value up. as i said, if the most valuable use was a bunch of mcmansions, why would you need zoning?

And if you eliminate it, nothing really will change. ban homeowners associations, same thing. You'll end up with large chunks of land with ground leases for 99 years or something, designed to guarantee a certain aesthetic. you can't social engineer. why do you think fraternities and sororities exist?

Well, some time ago, the Supreme Court held that you couldn't zone an area "white" or "black" even though zoning an area as "white" increased its value. Similarly, covenants forbidding sale to certain races were held to be invalid as against public policy.

I guess there is not a constitutional right to do with your property what you want. Nor is that good public policy.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Well, I never. If self-deprecating humor counts for nothing these days, I'm just going to give up on it entirely. Why waste negative energy on oneself?

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How so? If it preserved wealth, there would be no need for zoning, because the highest/best/most valuable use of hte land would be the mcmansion on a half acre. Zoning prevents people from maximizing the value of their land.

Zoning preserves choice. As you said, vote with your feet. Nothign prevents you from buying the lot with the large apartment complex and demolishing it in favor of your trailer home pad. Without zoning one ends up with a mediocre sameness everywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh, zoning preserves wealth (i.e., the value of land) by limiting what your neighbors can do. Your McMansion will fall in value if the house across the street is turned into a quadplex, and an apartment building is built on the lot next door. Zoning prevents them from tearing down the houses and doing that.

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Well, some time ago, the Supreme Court held that you couldn't zone an area "white" or "black" even though zoning an area as "white" increased its value. Similarly, covenants forbidding sale to certain races were held to be invalid as against public policy.

I guess there is not a constitutional right to do with your property what you want. Nor is that good public policy.

Objection, non-responsive. We didn't fight a civil war over discrimination against athletes or against zoning regulation.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Objection, non-responsive. We didn't fight a civil war over discrimination against athletes or against zoning regulation.

We fought a revolutionary war against those class-ist british.

I can't believe you are advocating for governmental restraints on the free transfer of property. You must really love your McMansion and the comfort and psychological (and other) security of being surrounded by other McMansions.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
We fought a revolutionary war against those class-ist british.

I can't believe you are advocating for governmental restraints on the free transfer of property. You must really love your McMansion and the comfort and psychological (and other) security of being surrounded by other McMansions.

In other words:

Zoning = Rent [Ok, Property] Control for the Rich


I'm gonna park my trailer [Wine Cellar and all] in front of Burger place! Fringie, come on by, we'll pop a few corks and throw them on his lawn!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Well, some time ago, the Supreme Court held that you couldn't zone an area "white" or "black" even though zoning an area as "white" increased its value. Similarly, covenants forbidding sale to certain races were held to be invalid as against public policy.

I guess there is not a constitutional right to do with your property what you want. Nor is that good public policy.

Careful fringe, you're straying from tax law. zoning is typically a government action, and restrictive covenants try and control property AFTER you get rid of it. neither of them are at all tied to rent control, and quit acting like rent control is for poor peole. the people i know who benefitted most were pretty well off.

one guy kept his apartment in Manhatten while he lived elsewhere. it was so cheap (300$) that he kept it for when he was in town. In DC i worked with some Viets who had an uncle who had been part of the SV embassy in the 70's. fuckers had the same GS level as me, but paid like 250 for 2 bedroons in cleveland park. little guy my well-licked ass. of course I don't know any poor people.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Duplicity
Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.

As free as the grass grows, as free as the wind blows, born free, to follow his heart!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
In other words:

Zoning = Rent [Ok, Property] Control for the Rich


I'm gonna park my trailer [Wine Cellar and all] in front of Burger place! Fringie, come on by, we'll pop a few corks and throw them on his lawn!

dude. keep up. we'll get to rent control being nat'l policy. first we've got to make esperanto the nat'l language. power to the people!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
We fought a revolutionary war against those class-ist british.

I can't believe you are advocating for governmental restraints on the free transfer of property. You must really love your McMansion and the comfort and psychological (and other) security of being surrounded by other McMansions.

No, I'm advocating for permitting a community of people to enter into a mutually restrictive arrangment that solves a collective action problem, which happens to be accomplished through government rather than private contract, and against a system whereby one group of people imposes welfare obligations upon another group of people. I didn't argue that rent control is unconstitutional--it is, just as is zoning regulation. I argued that rent control is a bad, unfair policy that does not come close to achieving its purported objectives while creating numerous problems for all parties involved. Zoning does none of those things, except for the person who's pissed off that he can't sell his house to a developer.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
dude. keep up. we'll get to rent control being nat'l policy. first we've got to make esperanto the nat'l language. power to the people!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
They can't? We should repeal those regulations as well. Although somehow I'm guessing that the need for those regulations coincides with the rise of rent control.

Exactly - for those of you that don't understand why, you should ignore this thread.