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.
Do you live in a commune and sit around the campfire singing Kumbya?
If you can afford "property" either by the sweat of your back or by whatever means, it's yours!
Did you stay up all night just to come up with a hair brained question??
Here's a better question to save for next time:briefs or shorts?
Not true, I once rented a guest house and when the owners relocated, they were willing but not allowed to sell it to me, i.e. I could afford to buy it but it was never mine.
No, I don't see what is a contradiction.....I said land isn't a right, we are not entitled to land ownership. The government didn't give me a plot of land when I turned 18.
I do think one who can afford to buy land should be able to buy land if they choose to. Though I do think there should be regional guidelines on how land is divided and sold.
Maybe you can explain to me what I am contradicting because I am not seeing it.....
again, what's to prevent class warfare in your regional determination? i.e. what's to stop a middle class region from designing guidelines with intent to exclude those below middle class?
2500 sq feet? How big is the house? Size limits and clearance are good for everyone in the area.
What if someone purchased one of those 2500 sq ft spaces and broke it up into 25 sq ft spaces ?
For clearity .. What are we talking when we say "small/tiny house" and "small property" ?
I support reasonable setback requirements; I've seen houses TOO close together, i.e. i think they should have been subject to a greater setback. A reasonable setback requirement effectively eliminates 25 sq ft spaces.
The example to which I aspire, and which I like to cite, is a 400 sq ft house (20' x 20') on a 2500 sq ft lot (50' x 50'). Plenty of setback there.
i'm talking about houses under 500 sq ft (400-500 sf), not the 150 sq ft houses which are a cult fad today.
then go to the local government, and get the zoning laws changed to allow for smaller houses and smaller properties, and stop complaining about minimum lot sizes.
you are going to have to show me where sowell says this.
except that you have, every time you oppose zoning laws.
you might be right, IF there are proper zoning laws in place. otherwise no you wouldnt.
again the reason for zoning laws. there are also density laws as well. not everyone wants to live in a tiny house. that is what apartments are for.
Do you understand how local governments work?
Humans are hierarchical social animals. Humans use government to promote and enforce their social and economic hierarchy, e.g. zoning and property rules are designed to keep out social and economic classes below the locally prevailing class (which usually is the middle class). Zoning is protectionism for incumbent property owners; who have a disincentive to expand property ownership to those beneath them financially.
I don't have a quote because i no longer have a copy of the book (it did not survive an earlier move), but it's in Markets and Minorities, chapter 7, which is devoted entirely to housing. As an economist, Sowell included an excellent economics graph that demonstrates that zoning redistributes income from renters to owners, and thus generally upward. (Most homeowners have greater income than most renters, but some renters have more income than some homeowners.) Interestingly, this early (1981) book has been long out of print, which leads me to suspect that Sowell may have since changed his opinion on this issue and that his views today might conform to those of the homeowner majority.
I oppose those aspects of zoning laws which prevent or preclude the purchase of property from a willing seller, and which relegate renters to a lower quality of life than homeowners. (e.g. the concept that rentals should be located on the wrong side of the tracks).
'That is what apartments are for." You have provided an example of the human disdain for those beneath them, which i mentioned earlier. Many people don't want to live in apartments, i don't, and i resent and resist the efforts of government to push me into one.
I oppose those aspects of zoning laws which prevent or preclude the purchase of property from a willing seller, and which relegate renters to a lower quality of life than homeowners. (e.g. the concept that rentals should be located on the wrong side of the tracks).
there are good reasons for not breaking up properties in certain areas, access for one. if you were to buy a particular strip of property from the homeowner you were renting from, and the only access you had to the property was from an alley way, that might be fine for you, but what about the next owner? you might find that bit of property hard to sell, and even if you sold it, the new owner might bug the owners of the larger piece for more access. the scenario you suggest does in fact cause more problems than it solves. one has to think not only of the current owners, but future owners as well.
Quote:
'That is what apartments are for." You have provided an example of the human disdain for those beneath them, which i mentioned earlier. Many people don't want to live in apartments, i don't, and i resent and resist the efforts of government to push me into one.
ok then dont live in an apartment. but what you are suggesting is basically apartments on small pieces of property, and essentially spreading out an apartment building over a much larger area. and that is also something you have railed against, urban spread. well apartments and condos are avoiding urban spread, like it or not.
the ownership of land IS a right, but land isnt just given to you, like anything else in life you have to go out and EARN it. the right to keep and bear arms is also a right, but again firearms are not issued to everyone on day one, they have to go out and EARN them.
then move to beaverton and buy one of those properties.
So if land isn't given to you, then how is it a right? If you cannot afford to own land, you don't have a right to land you cannot afford.....
I see what you are confused with now though, but no where does it say you have a right to land in this country. I am not saying you can't buy land, just saying you are not given land as a right to land.
So if land isn't given to you, then how is it a right? If you cannot afford to own land, you don't have a right to land you cannot afford.....
I see what you are confused with now though, but no where does it say you have a right to land in this country. I am not saying you can't buy land, just saying you are not given land as a right to land.
you have the right to own land, but you are NOT entitled to have a piece of land. just because something is a right does not mean you automatically get it. you have to buy your own firearm, you have to buy your own land. understand the difference between a right and an entitlement. and there are plenty of places in the constitution, as well as the laws of various jurisdictions, that allow the ownership of private property.
you have the right to own land, but you are NOT entitled to have a piece of land. just because something is a right does not mean you automatically get it. you have to buy your own firearm, you have to buy your own land. understand the difference between a right and an entitlement. and there are plenty of places in the constitution, as well as the laws of various jurisdictions, that allow the ownership of private property.
Then I guess we are just splitting hairs and saying the same thing.
Do you have a link to this development? I haven't heard of this one going on in the Portland metro.
They announced an open house and called for interested buyers/renters on CL about six months ago...I replied with interest in renting - I never considered buying 80 square feet of house, only renting it for a few years, with building savings in mind for discounted lump sum settlement of debts - and never heard from them (I did not mention intention in my reply). They included a small area map without a specific location or time of day. I can guess that by the time they heard from me, the handful of rental houses (four, i think) were spoken for, i can also guess that response was skewed by gender and that they really wanted to recruit more women but of course were not going to say as much publicly.
This is the title of the post to which I replied in July:
$250 / 80ft2 - Brand New Tiny Home Community! Beautiful Lot. Convenient Location. (Portland, Oregon)
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.
