Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We're currently building a ~4,000 Sq. Ft. house in the DC suburbs and don't have a neighbor within a 100 yards on either side. This is our piece of the American Pie. We earned it, and offer no apologies for it.
If your neighbors tighten the zoning to make the area more exclusive, and everyone's property value goes up 50% as a result, did they earn that 50% increase?
Of course it's your business. But the nanny state has been implemented because so many homeowners have decided that exercising personal responsibility takes more effort than they care to exercise, and have wrongly made it government's business.
The property owner's proper remedy is to sue his neighbor who caused a 20% drop in value. It's not to run to government in order to impose prior restraint on his neighbor.
The problem with forcing others to "abide by the rules set by the group" is when those rules infringe on fundamental rights. When these rules create artificial barriers to property ownership, and consequently displace existing residents, that's a problem. What's to stop the group from setting rules to drive out poor neighbors?
Your solution to personal responsibility is to sue people more? That sounds like creating more problems just to address an easy problem to correct.
Why are zoning laws made such that a person can't build a small home on a lot in their city? Why do Americans dislike small?
There are a few people who can get by and want to get by with a smaller home. Unfortunately many have complained on the internet that their city makes it difficult to do so.
...I am one of those people. I too want to build a 500 sq ft home (size of my current apartment) because that's the space I need.
There are plenty of areas around the country where you can build a small / smaller home. Simply go out and find one if that is what you want.
Most people want space ESPECIALLY if they have children (and even if they do not). Some, like my son, wanted his "man cave" (which exceeded 1200 sq feet) and the beauty is, if you want it, you can have it.
If your neighbors tighten the zoning to make the area more exclusive, and everyone's property value goes up 50% as a result, did they earn that 50% increase?
Yes, that is one of the factors why housing is so expensive in San Francisco.
And people rent at one point or another in their lifetime, what's your point? Are you against rentals? Isn't the property belong to an owner and it is up to them to do what they like with that property, which includes renting it out to others.
Of course it should be up to the owner what they do with their property. That's why I support the right of property owners to sell tiny pieces of property that burger flippers can afford to buy.
Yes, that is one of the factors why housing is so expensive in San Francisco.
So if government does something to increase property values, the property owners earned the increase in value? Or did government redistribute wealth from renters to owners?
Of course it should be up to the owner what they do with their property. That's why I support the right of property owners to sell tiny pieces of property that burger flippers can afford to buy.
Is "burger flippers" your way of saying minimum save employees? Though I do support developers building smaller units if there is a market for it.
There are plenty of areas around the country where you can build a small / smaller home. Simply go out and find one if that is what you want.
Most people want space ESPECIALLY if they have children (and even if they do not). Some, like my son, wanted his "man cave" (which exceeded 1200 sq feet) and the beauty is, if you want it, you can have it.
But if you don't own a car, you're not going to find those "areas around the country where you can build a small / smaller home."
So if government does something to increase property values, the property owners earned the increase in value? Or did government redistribute wealth from renters to owners?
Rents are high in San Francisco and New York for a reason, the property value in both are extremely high, thus results in hiher property taxes, which result in higher rents. That added tax revenue is then used on more things that benefit the general public within the city.
Is "burger flippers" your way of saying minimum save employees? Though I do support developers building smaller units if there is a market for it.
Yes, I believe everyone should be free to purchase from a willing seller property that they can afford. Since minimum wage employees can afford to rent, there is some existing level of property they can afford. So why shouldn't property owners be free to sell that sort of property?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
