Property Zoning

[Michael Landon]

Do you support the zoning of property into residential, business, etc.?

We will be discussing the possibility of rezoning someone's property from residential to multiple residences at the next City Council meeting. The property owner wants to tear down his home and build a triplex but his neighbors are up in arms over this and are trying to stop him. I'm curious to see what everyone thinks about zoning.

I've always been of the belief that someone can do whatever they want with their property and they shouldn't have to go to the government to seek permission. This is why I plan on supporting the change.

Thoughts and opinions?

- ML

[CaptUSA]

You have to be a little careful, though.

If you bought your property based upon the current zoning laws and the re-zoning would result in a loss of value, you would be pissed, too. You valued your property at A, but then government changed the rules and now it's valued at B?

This does highlight why these issues should be as locally as possible. If I were you, I'd probably hold my mind open until I heard the testimony of both sides. Both owners may have a compelling case. There may be a way to assess the amount of value change that would be imposed by your decision and have one party compensate the other.

Not always so black and white - especially when dealing with local concerns.

[Christian Liberty]

I agree with you; his property, his decision.

[Danke]

If you are not threatening anyone or polluting their space, like storing a powerful weapon that could accidentally explode (a nuke?), why worry?

[eduardo89]

I only support it when I'm playing SimCity.

[Christian Liberty]

You have to be a little careful, though.

If you bought your property based upon the current zoning laws and the re-zoning would result in a loss of value, you would be pissed, too. You valued your property at A, but then government changed the rules and now it's valued at B?

This does highlight why these issues should be as locally as possible. If I were you, I'd probably hold my mind open until I heard the testimony of both sides. Both owners may have a compelling case. There may be a way to assess the amount of value change that would be imposed by your decision and have one party compensate the other.

Not always so black and white - especially when dealing with local concerns.

This is absurd, and this is the line of thinking that leads to statism to begin with. Someone might be ticked, but so what? There is never a good excuse to codify aggression.

[Wadesc]

Greetings from Houston where we have no zoning

It's alright

We have like 5 "downtowns"

Makes really powerful Homeowners associations though, and those guys are generally not cut out for it

[Cabal]

Do you support the zoning of property into residential, business, etc.?

We will be discussing the possibility of rezoning someone's property from residential to multiple residences at the next City Council meeting. The property owner wants to tear down his home and build a triplex but his neighbors are up in arms over this and are trying to stop him. I'm curious to see what everyone thinks about zoning.

I've always been of the belief that someone can do whatever they want with their property and they shouldn't have to go to the government to seek permission. This is why I plan on supporting the change.

Thoughts and opinions?

- ML

Is it his/her property?

If yes, then shouldn't he/she be free to do with it as he/she pleases?

Why are they trying to stop the property owner?

I can empathize with potential concerns of neighbors, but I don't think that gives them any rights or say-so in what the property owner is free to do with his/her property. I would suggest perhaps trying to get the neighbors to voice concerns to the property owner in a reasonable fashion, and perhaps they can come to a contractual arrangement about certain things to alleviate their concerns. For instance, if one of the concerns is about the demolition process, maybe the property owner can agree to demo on certain days of the week, or at certain times in the day?

The less reliant we are on the State, the more free we will find ourselves to be.

[CaptUSA]

I agree with you; his property, his decision.

I can see the other side of this, though.

If he bought his property under the current zoning laws that the community had already agreed to, then he knew what he could and could not do with his property. It sounds like he may be trying to increase the value of his own property while decreasing the value of his neighbors' and using the government to help him.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to do it, but if he is expecting a local government rule change to help him, the impact on his neighbors should be weighed.

[CaptUSA]

Is it his/her property?

If yes, then shouldn't he/she be free to do with it as he/she pleases?

Why are they trying to stop the property owner?

I can empathize with potential concerns of neighbors, but I don't think that gives them any rights or say-so in what the property owner is free to do with his/her property. I would suggest perhaps trying to get the neighbors to voice concerns to the property owner in a reasonable fashion, and perhaps they can come to a contractual arrangement about certain things to alleviate their concerns. For instance, if one of the concerns is about the demolition process, maybe the property owner can agree to demo on certain days of the week, or at certain times in the day?

The less reliant we are on the State, the more free we will find ourselves to be.

This is good.

[CaptUSA]

This is absurd, and this is the line of thinking that leads to statism to begin with. Someone might be ticked, but so what? There is never a good excuse to codify aggression.

Um, no. Did you really pull the "statist" card on me? You must be callow.

[Carson]

First thing that comes to mind is parking.

I'm seeing a lot of building going on, with what I think, is not enough parking. If they want to live that way that's fine with me. It might become a nuisance spilling over into surrounding area where people had planned and now their plans are messed up. That's not so cool and will be hard to undo.

[Christian Liberty]

He was a victim of aggression from the very beginning, was he not? His property, his rules.

[Christian Liberty]

Um, no. Did you really pull the "statist" card on me? You must be callow.

I didn't call you a statist. I said that line of thinking leads to statism because it does. Justifying some coercion because of past coercion is the very thing the State feeds on.

[CaptUSA]

He was a victim of aggression from the very beginning, was he not? His property, his rules.

Only if he bought his property free from the encumbrances of local zoning laws. He did not. His property - the local community rules. Rules that he wants to get changed for himself. If there are damages incurred by others, compensation is in order to allow him to change them. One could easily argue that if he did not like the local rules, he shouldn't have bought property there. Because the other people who bought their property because they liked the local ordinances could not want them to change.

[Christian Liberty]

Then ultimately, you believe property is owned partly by the individual and partly by the "community". Your argument here speaks for itself. You don't understand what liberty is.

Now, if Michael Landon was a Federal or State official, I could certainly see your arguments for why he, in particular, should not act here. After all, switching communities is easier than switching countries, and so decentralization leads to more liberty as a rule; especially since we know authoritarianism fails. But, its not like Michael Landon can defer this to a more local level. Either he'll do everything he can to enable this property owner to do what he likes with his property, or he won't. And its very obvious what the freedom-oriented option is. Positive rights are a myth.

[Pericles]

Greetings from Houston where we have no zoning

It's alright

We have like 5 "downtowns"

Makes really powerful Homeowners associations though, and those guys are generally not cut out for it

IMO< homeowners Assns. are worse than zoning. It is possible for the city to influence property usage via infrastructure. You could build a high rise in a residential neighborhood if there was no zoning, but a 4 inch diameter water main and two lane road with no nearby parking would tend to make such actions unprofitable.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I'd agree with he knew what he was getting into.

Parking was my first thought. Does he have off street parking? Then that he would use these as rental units. Just how big is this lot? If it is large and there are trees for a privacy barrier, why not. But it doesn't sound like that. The neighbors are pissed about something, but what? Why isn't the guy not just adding an extension and dividing the house up into several units each with a door...

But to use an extreme example or two, suppose you're living in a residential neighborhood and your neighbor decides to start doing industrial manufacturing or start up a toxic waste dump. Limited zoning rules aren't that bad, though in most places they are totally over the top.

-t

[Christian Liberty]

If he is trying to be allowed to use the public street, or even worse, someone else's property, for parking I can see the issue. If he's in some way DIRECTLY affecting someone else's property (toxic waste or whatnot) I can also see the issue.

But in this case it seems like its more of an indirect nuisance. "Oh my we'll have more traffic in the area, and it won't look nice, and whatever." And while I can certainly see why this could be annoying, to ask the State to help you prevent someone from doing it is authoritarian, and warrants no sympathy.

[gwax23]

Zoning laws are some of the stupidest laws on the book. They completely undermine the entire concept of property rights. You cant build or develop your property without government approval. It needs to meet certain guidelines and criteria that fit into their plans for the city. Its central planning just in a very specific form.

Zoning is one of the main reasons there is so much ubran sprawl in the US. It would be more economical in many circumstances to build apartments and mixed use buildings ( like having a store on the bottom level an rental units above) but most zoning restricts this. It allows only residential units of a certain conformity in a huge area with commercial space in a completely other far flung area. We only had zoning really starting after or just before the second world war. All major cities here and abroad started and built up without any zoning. Unplanned cities and communities are more aesthetically pleasing then centrally planned cities the likes of pyongyang or the likes of your typical american kitty cutter houses for miles on end.

If it werent for zoning our communities would be set up in a better way. We would have more commercial and store front properties mixed within residential areas so less driving to get to a store and it creates more walk-ability in a neighborhood instead of being so car dependent as most zoning systems tend to lead to.

Zoning laws are pushed by rich property owners in order to exclude lower class individuals from their neighborhoods and thus keep property values artificially high. Its allows a type of segregation. High density residential properties such as apartments are restricted despite population growth and other factors that would make apartments much more economical then 2 garage 3 1/2 bath houses. But because rich WASPY types dont want to allow their neighborhood to change let alone let in different people they implemented zoning laws which greatly increase the cost of building not only housing but commercial property which also hurts the development of new businesses. These increased costs drive away many potential people from living in said areas.

The US has the most extensive zoning laws in the world. Even the most "socialist" countries dont really come close to us in this regard. Zoning laws are complex and subject to constant change and revision at a whims of a few members of some zoning board. You could end up building a property and then 5 years later the city arbitrarily decides to come after you because some stupid minor transgression of the law. Fines are enormous for stuff like that. This even effects when you want to renovate or redevelop existing properties.

Its a stupid government regulation that you should push at your meeting to be done with.

[Christian Liberty]

Zoning laws are some of the stupidest laws on the book. They completely undermine the entire concept of property rights. You cant build or develop your property without government approval. It needs to meet certain guidelines and criteria that fit into their plans for the city. Its central planning just in a very specific form.

Zoning is one of the main reasons there is so much ubran sprawl in the US. It would be more economical in many circumstances to build apartments and mixed use buildings ( like having a store on the bottom level an rental units above) but most zoning restricts this. It allows only residential units of a certain conformity in a huge area with commercial space in a completely other far flung area. We only had zoning really starting after or just before the second world war. All major cities here and abroad started and build up without any zoning. Unplanned cities and communities are more aesthetically pleasing then centrally planned cities the likes of pyongyang or the likes of your typical american kitty cutter houses for miles on end.

If it werent for zoning our communities would be set up in a better way. We would have more commercial and store front properties mixed within residential areas so less driving to get to a store and it creates more walk-ability in a neighborhood instead of being so car dependent as most zoning systems do.

Zoning laws are pushed by rich property owners in order to exclude lower class individuals from their neighborhoods and thus keep property values artificially high. Its allows a type of segregation. High density residential properties such as apartments are restricted despite population growth and other factors that would make apartments much mroe economical then 2 garage 3 1/2 bath houses. But because rich WASPY types dont want to allow their neighborhood to change let alone let in different people they implemented zoning laws which greatly increase the cost of building not only housing but commercial property which hurts the development of new businesses.

The US has the most extensive zoning laws in the world. Even the most "socialist" countries dont really come close to us in this regard. Zoning laws are complex subject to constant change and revision at a fews whim. You could end up building a property and then 5 years later the city arbitrarily decides to come after you because some stupid minor transgression of the law. Fines are enormous for stuff like that. This even effects when you want to renovate or redevelop existing properties.

Its a stupid government regulation that you should push at your meeting to be done with.

This is a very insightful post. The semi-utilitarians here should take heed to someone who actually understands liberty

[kahless]

I can see why the other homeowners would be pissed. If I am purchasing property in a community that has residential zoning I know that my neighbor is not going to create an issue with their property that would devalue my property or negatively effect my access or usage of my property.

If the property was not zoned residential and was multi-zoned I may have not purchased the property in the first place.

[Christian Liberty]

In other words, everyone has an interest in everyone else's property. These are the EXACT same arguments I've seen liberals use in the past. Its pathetic.

Let's start at square one. Why do you support liberty? How do you know its right? Then, considering your original reason, why is this case an exception?

[gwax23]

Other homeowners have no right to dictate to someone else what they can and cannot do with their property. People are trying to act here as if there is some sort of communal ownership of the property in the neighborhood.

[kahless]

In other words, everyone has an interest in everyone else's property. These are the EXACT same arguments I've seen liberals use in the past. Its pathetic.

Let's start at square one. Why do you support liberty? How do you know its right? Then, considering your original reason, why is this case an exception?

You have a very naive view of the issue which is far more complex than you are making it out to be.

I am not a fan of zoning laws or homeowner associations. However I believe there is a place for them for those whom wish to protect their property rights and investments by chosing to live in such communities. Just as you should be able to chose to purchase property where there are no zoning laws.

[Christian Liberty]

You have a very naive view of the issue which is far more complex than you are making it out to be.

I am not a fan of zoning laws or homeowner associations. However I believe there is a place for them for those whom wish to protect their property rights and investments by chosing to live in such communities. Just as you should be able to chose to purchase property where there are no zoning laws.

How is "property ownership" complicated? If you want zoning laws sign a contract with all property owners in the area. If you can't do it, tough luck. Why is this complicated?

[gwax23]

How is "property ownership" complicated? If you want zoning laws sign a contract with all property owners in the area. If you can't do it, tough luck. Why is this complicated?

This. You cant use the power of government to force other people to conform to your standards. If people are really so anal about this and would hate for someones house to look a little different they can move to planned communities where people sign contracts before they buy or build on the property that say they have to meet certain standards. In most cases though people should be free to do what they want with their property.

[Tod]

This is absurd, and this is the line of thinking that leads to statism to begin with. Someone might be ticked, but so what? There is never a good excuse to codify aggression.

CaptUSA brings up a good point, FF....you say his property, he can do as he pleases, but if the result is that it is his property but he can't do a damn thing with it because when he bought it there were all kinds of private contract stipulations he had to agree to in order to buy it, is he any further ahead? Ideally he would just not buy any property with those restrictions, but what happens when all property is covered by these restrictions and there is none available without? The result is that there might be far less freedom for property owners.

[Ender]

This. You cant use the power of government to force other people to conform to your standards. If people are really so anal about this and would hate for someones house to look a little different they can move to planned communities where people sign contracts before they buy or build on the property that they have to meet certain standards. In most cases though people should be free to do what they want with their property.

Agreed.

[kahless]

How is "property ownership" complicated? If you want zoning laws sign a contract with all property owners in the area. If you can't do it, tough luck. Why is this complicated?

You were arguing against any property restrictions without regard to property buyers may base their purchase on zoning, homeowners associations, etc.

Now you are saying it is okay as long as you sign a contract with all property owners. I would prefer it be done in that fashion to but that is not the reality of those whom purchased under current zoning instead.