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.
They shouldn't.... but people would build developments like this if nimby's didn't use government force to make it impossible.
Yes, while no one is responsible for others to be able to live where they want at the price they want, others shouldn't get in the way of those willing to create that type of housing on their own.
Reasonable codes are understandable. Just because it's not somewhere you would want to live isn't a reason to stop others.
People use "mobile homes" from the 70's as a cop-out to say that tiny housing is trash, but if high quality materials and techniques are used, they are just as high quality as a normal house. They could be even better if we were allowed to build them on a permanent foundation.
I have designed developments that have similar density to apartment buildings, but they are cheaper and everyone gets a mini-yard with their mini-house, the renderings are stunningly beautiful. (Not a guaranteed ghetto, like some people like to claim all affordable housing leads too.) I could put these mini suburbs/new urbanism developments over a parking lot in a downtown/college area and sell/rent them to students and professionals no problem..... if the government didn't tell me that they would destroy it once built and levy fines against me for doing it.
DING DING DING we have a winner!
This is EXACTLY what I've been looking for, but all I've been able to find are rentals that aren't all that affordable.
And yes, college towns are exactly where I've seen these. And that might be why they've been unaffordable to me; graduate students and subsidized undergrads have more money than I do.
My neighborhood has certain building standards, but it can be anything from 3 bed room to 6. Houses range from 120K to 270k. New houses are being built. If I didn't like that I could buy land outside of a zoned area and build a little house for next to nothing.
It sounds like the municipality or the neighborhood you are trying to build in does not want houses below a certain value level built outside of subsidized homes so that they keep housing values high.
The libertarian solution is move. If that isn't an option, run for office yourself or campaign your neighbors and people in the city to vote for someone to change the current laws, removing them from the books.
WRONG.
The libertarian solution is... build whatever you want on your property, it does not belong to your neighbor. If they want to restrict what is built on a certain piece of land, they can buy that land.
The libertarian solution is... build whatever you want on your property, it does not belong to your neighbor. If they want to restrict what is built on a certain piece of land, they can buy that land.
Yes, and if the current local/state laws prohibit him from building it, his options are to change the laws to reflect libertarian values, or move, right? Thats my point.
If its simply an HOA thing where he lives, then that is libertarian, because HOA's are private entities who can make whatever rules about houses in their area.
Yes, and if the current local/state laws prohibit him from building it, his options are to change the laws to reflect libertarian values, or move, right? Thats my point.
He didn't ask for practical advice, he asked what the libertarian solution would be. And it would be a government that does not have the authority to tell you what you can and can not build on land you own.
Quote:
If its simply an HOA thing where he lives, then that is libertarian, because HOA's are private entities who can make whatever rules about houses in their area.
Yes, but it is not HOA that is the issue, it is government zoning and codes. Again, I have looked into it because I want to build a development like this myself, the demand is obviously there. If I do it, I will ultimately have government violence used against me and my property.
Recently I talked with one of those urban planner types, who said the market locally doesn't currently build unsubsidized housing in my desired price range. This price range is one of several price ranges generally recognized by planner types and a price range relevant to many people.
If the private sector is not building for this market segment, that sounds to me like market failure.
Obviously, a conservative and especially a libertarian solution does not include providing subsidies.
So what's your solution? Shrug and let people vote with their feet as they get priced out of the region?
See this is where it get so needlessly complex. I live in San Diego, if you get to the California CD forum right now, there are many LIBERALS who simultaneously declare:
California is too crowded, lets force housing process higher and force people to vote with their feet so we can get the population sustainable.
There is not enough housing being built to force prices down
It should be illegal to open up more land to build more houses
It's OK for illegals to move into apartments and house 8-10 people in one unit, and it's the greedy rich who should not be allowed to call zoning to get the unit down to the 4 persons it was certified for.
We must stop building roads so that people are forced into higher density projects downtown
We must stop allowing higher density projects downtown because the buildings are too tall.
We must build more mass transit so we can have higher density projects at stations
(This one right from the Sierra club) We must stop building mass transit in LA because it is allowing people to move further out.
And the list goes on.
Bottom line is: Market forces may not be even close to perfect or even sustainable, but if you were to make a feasibility matrix of every demand the LIBERAL community makes of what MUST be done to solve CA's housing crisis, there is no feasible options left, and yes, thanks to that people are voting with their feet.
You may have to relocate. What are you Hopi or something? 'Cause "relocate" doesn't seem to be part of your vocabulary.
If you get priced out, you'll just have to leave....too bad, so sad.
If you get priced out of an iPhone, you'll just have to settle for Samsung.
That's it works....
Mircea
Currently I have less than $10; rent consumes 52 percent of my income and leaves me broke until my second bimonthly payday (which is this Friday). Don't see any relocation in my immediate future.
If I get priced out of a 1989 Hyundai Excel (which was one step above a Yugo), I can buy a Yugo.
If I get priced out of a crappy SRO, a hovel and a tent are not lawful options.
Homelessness is lawful but living in a hovel or a tent is not?
Yes, but it is not HOA that is the issue, it is government zoning and codes. Again, I have looked into it because I want to build a development like this myself, the demand is obviously there. If I do it, I will ultimately have government violence used against me and my property.
GASP...you mean the government would enforce the laws that everyone agreed to follow! OMG noes!
Sigh. If you want to do this, find a place and follow the laws. The best advice would be to have a good discussion with someone in the local government, convince his or her of your idea, and get it voted on. This is called living in a civilized society. OR bring it up as a ballot measure, and have it voted on.
But "I will ultimately have government violence used against me and my property." is foolish hyperbole thats designed to make someone else sound like the bad guy, when its you.
Currently I have less than $10; rent consumes 52 percent of my income and leaves me broke until my second bimonthly payday (which is this Friday). Don't see any relocation in my immediate future.
If I get priced out of a 1989 Hyundai Excel (which was one step above a Yugo), I can buy a Yugo.
If I get priced out of a crappy SRO, a hovel and a tent are not lawful options.
Homelessness is lawful but living in a hovel or a tent is not?
What's up with that?
Actually you CAN live in a tent in many areas. just not the ones you want because....you've been priced out of them.
He didn't ask for practical advice, he asked what the libertarian solution would be. And it would be a government that does not have the authority to tell you what you can and can not build on land you own.
Yes, but it is not HOA that is the issue, it is government zoning and codes. Again, I have looked into it because I want to build a development like this myself, the demand is obviously there. If I do it, I will ultimately have government violence used against me and my property.
The only chance he has is to change the laws. It may be conservatives in the area that passed this law. Conservatives pass liberal laws to keep society unchanged.
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.
