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.
There are indeed wealthy communities in this country which are run by the top 1 percent. I have never ever ever seen a zoning code which was written by the bottom 50 percent or by renters. Zoning exists for the protection and benefit of property owners; as such it is an issue of great interest and concern of homeowners and of little import to renters.
A right which cannot be exercised by 40 percent of the country is hardly a right, and there is nothing in this country to stop governments from excluding the bottom 30 percent or the bottom 60 percent or the bottom 99 percent.
Oh look, you are confusing a community of the 1% with a community of everyone else. More wordsmithing. And there are tons of things that stop governments from excluding the bottom 30%. Its called voting.
I get where you are coming from (AND AGREE), but you are over simplifying the issue, and trying to wordsmith it into something it is not.
And you'd be incorrect. You just don't understand the distinction between right and entitlement. While the words are similar, they don't have identical meanings.
Do I have the right to buy real property from a willing seller if the property offered does not meet some government-mandated minimum size?
Do I have the right to buy real property from a willing seller if the property offered does not meet some government-mandated minimum size?
No you do not. But I assure you that the 1% would love to be able too.
Can you imagine the joy of selling 50 sq foot properties, and then squishing the poor down so they all live on them in tiny shacks? Be careful what you ask for....
Oh look, you are confusing a community of the 1% with a community of everyone else. More wordsmithing. And there are tons of things that stop governments from excluding the bottom 30%. Its called voting.
I get where you are coming from (AND AGREE), but you are over simplifying the issue, and trying to wordsmith it into something it is not.
I an merely using a real-life example to illustrate a point. Local governments often make property acquisition requirements which are consonant with their existing composition, e.g. a Top 1% community is going to write the rules to stay top 1%. There is no voting behavior available to the bottom 99% what will change the reality on the ground.
Similar behavior goes down the socioeconomic spectrum; the median income/wealth community necessarily adopts lower standards than the top 1% community, but still is unlikely to open their zoning codes to the bottom quartile.
There are very few municipalities where renters hold a working political majority.
More than 60% of the country is homeowners so it's clearly a right that not only can be exercised by all of the bottom 40% but in fact is exercised by the bottom 40%.
The housing bubble period - assisted by Fed prodding of lenders to boost homeownership - is the only time since the Homestead Act that government actively facilitated large scale home acquisition by those below the middle class. (FHA was launched as very much a middle class program.)
Many homeowners did not buy their homes at market terms and prices; many inherit their homes or acquire them from family through insider deals or with down payment subsidies from family.
No you do not. But I assure you that the 1% would love to be able too.
Can you imagine the joy of selling 50 sq foot properties, and then squishing the poor down so they all live on them in tiny shacks? Be careful what you ask for....
A transaction which can be disallowed by government is necessarily a privilege, and there is no right to it. Privileges which are determined politically are inherently subject to class warfare.
Local homeowners have HUGE incentives, tangible and intangible, to prevent the scenario you suggest, and it is common practice for local governments to enact hindrances to this hazard.
For example, property owners are often afforded first shot at vacant land or abandoned properties adjacent to the owner's property. Even so, homeowners often go to extraordinary lengths to neutralize risks posed by nearby properties, e.g. by pooling resources to buy out the slumlord down the block.
A transaction which can be disallowed by government is necessarily a privilege, and there is no right to it. Privileges which are determined politically are inherently subject to class warfare.
Local homeowners have HUGE incentives, tangible and intangible, to prevent the scenario you suggest, and it is common practice for local governments to enact hindrances to this hazard.
For example, property owners are often afforded first shot at vacant land or abandoned properties adjacent to the owner's property. Even so, homeowners often go to extraordinary lengths to neutralize risks posed by nearby properties, e.g. by pooling resources to buy out the slumlord down the block.
The concept of Property rights are key to the Common Law and came out of philosophy that if one 'owns property,' they will be a better steward and make greater use of that property than if the property is not owned. This has been borne out through different human experiments especially comparing Communism and the property rights that were common in countries of Western Europe and N. America.
A major violation of property rights of a society is the surest way to destroy the productive capacity of that society. Property right is a somewhat limited one that is accounted for in Property Law and in various code laws.
He is trying to create a discussion, and is taking a page out of some of the right wing folks where they discuss rights vs privileges.
IE Is driving a right or a privilege.
Its not a 100% unreasonable question that he is asking, the bottom line is that while you have rights as a property owner, they do not include the right to transact in everything, we limit the rights to sell nuclear weapons for example. But in this case we're talking real estate specifically.
In some ways after considering it further, it is a interesting conversation, but not one I find particularly compelling. As his desired goal would result in nightmarish scenarios that we as a society have chosen to restrict.
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.
