Anonymous wrote:^^ I’m still waiting for a progressive that supposedly supports urbanization and diversity to explain to me why they live in an exclusive all white neighborhood or building, and not PG county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

Not an either or on development elsewhere.

It is a serious question. Why don’t YOU live East of the Anacostia? Tell us why. What is it? It has everything you claim you like. Including diversity.

Even without pointing out your disgusting hypocrisy, you figure that identifying actual problems would suggest what to fix first. If half the city is unlivable, why is that?

Classic urbanists answers though. Instead of making yourself better, you intend to make others and other places worse.

As house prices rise in the District, MoCo and Arlington, there's a price-attractive alternative relatively close to Washington, DC. -- PG Country. It's not as if there isn't a porous land border between DC and PG.

EOTR lacks the infrastructure and destinations that make the other parts more desirable. It is a food dessert. There are few grocery stores, fewer restaurants, and places just across the river do not deliver. The metro stops are few and far between. It is difficult to bike due to the topography and lack of bike lanes. And every time something nice is offered, the parameters get watered down until it is nothing that was promised. Example: Circle K on MLK Jr was to become mixed use shopping with a grocery store, something that is needed on that Main Street corridor. Now they are trying to put in health care offices. There are already 5-6 healthcare facilities in a three block radius.

Incredible. You know that if you move there you could change all that?

When I first moved to DC Logan Circle was a”food desert”. There were basically only a handful of supermarkets in the city proper and one of those was the famous Soviet Safeway. How sad is that you lack the will and imagination to make the change that you claim to believe in.

Are you NIMBYs now taking credit for... whole foods?

Jesus, get a grip. There are many valid reasons why 7/8 have these issues. Simply saying "move there" is one weak pathetic argument.

My word you people keep getting stupider and stupider.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

Not an either or on development elsewhere.

It is a serious question. Why don’t YOU live East of the Anacostia? Tell us why. What is it? It has everything you claim you like. Including diversity.

Even without pointing out your disgusting hypocrisy, you figure that identifying actual problems would suggest what to fix first. If half the city is unlivable, why is that?

Classic urbanists answers though. Instead of making yourself better, you intend to make others and other places worse.

As house prices rise in the District, MoCo and Arlington, there's a price-attractive alternative relatively close to Washington, DC. -- PG Country. It's not as if there isn't a porous land border between DC and PG.

EOTR lacks the infrastructure and destinations that make the other parts more desirable. It is a food dessert. There are few grocery stores, fewer restaurants, and places just across the river do not deliver. The metro stops are few and far between. It is difficult to bike due to the topography and lack of bike lanes. And every time something nice is offered, the parameters get watered down until it is nothing that was promised. Example: Circle K on MLK Jr was to become mixed use shopping with a grocery store, something that is needed on that Main Street corridor. Now they are trying to put in health care offices. There are already 5-6 healthcare facilities in a three block radius.

Incredible. You know that if you move there you could change all that?

When I first moved to DC Logan Circle was a”food desert”. There were basically only a handful of supermarkets in the city proper and one of those was the famous Soviet Safeway. How sad is that you lack the will and imagination to make the change that you claim to believe in.

Are you NIMBYs now taking credit for... whole foods?

Jesus, get a grip. There are many valid reasons why 7/8 have these issues. Simply saying "move there" is one weak pathetic argument.

My word you people keep getting stupider and stupider.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

Just so you're aware, there's a lot of daylight between allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their property and Somalia.

I guess the difference is that you want to control what people can and cannot do on their property. Got it. Thanks.

I don't know if you're being ironic or something, but that is your position. You want to dictate that people cannot build duplexes on their SFH property. You want to dictate that people cannot build accessory dwelling units on their property. You want to dictate that multifamily housing shouldn't be build in Ward 3.

Your position is that you want to allow people to build what they want but only if it meets the criteria that you want. Our positions are the same. We just disagree on the criteria. You just want to replace your judgment with others judgment.

No, you're still wrong. If you want to keep your SFH in Ward 3, that's fine! But I reject your desire to exercise dominion over what other people choose to do with their properties.

But you didn’t say that. You specifically said that noise and pollution should not be allowed. Therefore, you do not want to give people the ability to exercise dominion over their property.

I'm not the same poster who said that. But, to be fair to the poster who did say that, there's a lot of daylight between allowing property owners to build duplexes and allowing property owners to build smelting plants. Do you not see that?

There is actually not a lot of daylight. It is a difference of opinion about how to regulate land use. To dress it up as a property rights issue, as I point out, is incorrect.

There's a ton of daylight, you're being deliberately obtuse. For neighborhoods with residential zoning, I believe that you may build residences as you see fit. You wish to exercise dominion over others and would prevent SFH property owners from building duplexes. I can see that you're entrenched in your opinion, so we can leave it at that.

Again, you concede that there should be limits to what people can and cannot do on their property. We differ in what that is. You want to change the status quo to fit your own prerogatives. You are not an advocate for property rights or freedom. You just want people to be able to do on their property what you want them to do and don’t want them to do what you don’t want. In that we are alike.

Sigh, you’re a freedumb-er.

In fact, it is removing zoning rules to allow dense housing that makes people more free — by allowing them to live in more places.
NIMBY’s who want to keep our current insane zoning laws usually just are greedy and selfish and want their property values to go up without regard to the rest of society. It’s not so far off from the endpoint of embracing Koch-style freedumb. Then, you get Somalia, where everyone is selfish and so only the very rich have a good life. In contrast, American-style freedom involves doing what’s right for society.

In this case, that’s upzoning- so that current property owners cannot hoard all the available land and control new housing. In the Koch case, that means taxing the crap out of wealth and preventing billionaires from hoarding all the wealth.

Curious fusion of GGW and Ayn Rand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

Not an either or on development elsewhere.

It is a serious question. Why don’t YOU live East of the Anacostia? Tell us why. What is it? It has everything you claim you like. Including diversity.

Even without pointing out your disgusting hypocrisy, you figure that identifying actual problems would suggest what to fix first. If half the city is unlivable, why is that?

Classic urbanists answers though. Instead of making yourself better, you intend to make others and other places worse.

EOTR lacks the infrastructure and destinations that make the other parts more desirable. It is a food dessert. There are few grocery stores, fewer restaurants, and places just across the river do not deliver. The metro stops are few and far between. It is difficult to bike due to the topography and lack of bike lanes. And every time something nice is offered, the parameters get watered down until it is nothing that was promised. Example: Circle K on MLK Jr was to become mixed use shopping with a grocery store, something that is needed on that Main Street corridor. Now they are trying to put in health care offices. There are already 5-6 healthcare facilities in a three block radius.

Incredible. You know that if you move there you could change all that?

When I first moved to DC Logan Circle was a”food desert”. There were basically only a handful of supermarkets in the city proper and one of those was the famous Soviet Safeway. How sad is that you lack the will and imagination to make the change that you claim to believe in.

Are you NIMBYs now taking credit for... whole foods?

Jesus, get a grip. There are many valid reasons why 7/8 have these issues. Simply saying "move there" is one weak pathetic argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

Not an either or on development elsewhere.

It is a serious question. Why don’t YOU live East of the Anacostia? Tell us why. What is it? It has everything you claim you like. Including diversity.

Even without pointing out your disgusting hypocrisy, you figure that identifying actual problems would suggest what to fix first. If half the city is unlivable, why is that?

Classic urbanists answers though. Instead of making yourself better, you intend to make others and other places worse.

EOTR lacks the infrastructure and destinations that make the other parts more desirable. It is a food dessert There are few grocery stores, fewer restaurants, and places just across the river do not deliver. The metro stops are few and far between. It is difficult to bike due to the topography and lack of bike lanes. And every time something nice is offered, the parameters get watered down until it is nothing that was promised. Example: Circle K on MLK Jr was to become mixed use shopping with a grocery store, something that is needed on that Main Street corridor. Now they are trying to put in health care offices. There are already 5-6 healthcare facilities in a three block radius.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

Not an either or on development elsewhere.

It is a serious question. Why don’t YOU live East of the Anacostia? Tell us why. What is it? It has everything you claim you like. Including diversity.

Even without pointing out your disgusting hypocrisy, you figure that identifying actual problems would suggest what to fix first. If half the city is unlivable, why is that?

Classic urbanists answers though. Instead of making yourself better, you intend to make others and other places worse.

EOTR lacks the infrastructure and destinations that make the other parts more desirable. It is a food dessert. There are few grocery stores, fewer restaurants, and places just across the river do not deliver. The metro stops are few and far between. It is difficult to bike due to the topography and lack of bike lanes. And every time something nice is offered, the parameters get watered down until it is nothing that was promised. Example: Circle K on MLK Jr was to become mixed use shopping with a grocery store, something that is needed on that Main Street corridor. Now they are trying to put in health care offices. There are already 5-6 healthcare facilities in a three block radius.

Incredible. You know that if you move there you could change all that?

When I first moved to DC Logan Circle was a”food desert”. There were basically only a handful of supermarkets in the city proper and one of those was the famous Soviet Safeway. How sad is that you lack the will and imagination to make the change that you claim to believe in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

Not an either or on development elsewhere.

It is a serious question. Why don’t YOU live East of the Anacostia? Tell us why. What is it? It has everything you claim you like. Including diversity.

Even without pointing out your disgusting hypocrisy, you figure that identifying actual problems would suggest what to fix first. If half the city is unlivable, why is that?

Classic urbanists answers though. Instead of making yourself better, you intend to make others and other places worse.

EOTR lacks the infrastructure and destinations that make the other parts more desirable. It is a food dessert. There are few grocery stores, fewer restaurants, and places just across the river do not deliver. The metro stops are few and far between. It is difficult to bike due to the topography and lack of bike lanes. And every time something nice is offered, the parameters get watered down until it is nothing that was promised. Example: Circle K on MLK Jr was to become mixed use shopping with a grocery store, something that is needed on that Main Street corridor. Now they are trying to put in health care offices. There are already 5-6 healthcare facilities in a three block radius.

Guess what. It was only a decade ago that the Navy Yard was a wasteland. Same with Logan Circle and SW DC. So, the answer is to encourage development across the River, while taking steps to ensure that current residents can remain there. So, what you really want is to live is a higher income area NOW, even though you can't afford it, apparently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

Not an either or on development elsewhere.

It is a serious question. Why don’t YOU live East of the Anacostia? Tell us why. What is it? It has everything you claim you like. Including diversity.

Even without pointing out your disgusting hypocrisy, you figure that identifying actual problems would suggest what to fix first. If half the city is unlivable, why is that?

Classic urbanists answers though. Instead of making yourself better, you intend to make others and other places worse.

EOTR lacks the infrastructure and destinations that make the other parts more desirable. It is a food dessert. There are few grocery stores, fewer restaurants, and places just across the river do not deliver. The metro stops are few and far between. It is difficult to bike due to the topography and lack of bike lanes. And every time something nice is offered, the parameters get watered down until it is nothing that was promised. Example: Circle K on MLK Jr was to become mixed use shopping with a grocery store, something that is needed on that Main Street corridor. Now they are trying to put in health care offices. There are already 5-6 healthcare facilities in a three block radius.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

Just so you're aware, there's a lot of daylight between allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their property and Somalia.

I guess the difference is that you want to control what people can and cannot do on their property. Got it. Thanks.

I don't know if you're being ironic or something, but that is your position. You want to dictate that people cannot build duplexes on their SFH property. You want to dictate that people cannot build accessory dwelling units on their property. You want to dictate that multifamily housing shouldn't be build in Ward 3.

Your position is that you want to allow people to build what they want but only if it meets the criteria that you want. Our positions are the same. We just disagree on the criteria. You just want to replace your judgment with others judgment.

No, you're still wrong. If you want to keep your SFH in Ward 3, that's fine! But I reject your desire to exercise dominion over what other people choose to do with their properties.

But you didn’t say that. You specifically said that noise and pollution should not be allowed. Therefore, you do not want to give people the ability to exercise dominion over their property.

I'm not the same poster who said that. But, to be fair to the poster who did say that, there's a lot of daylight between allowing property owners to build duplexes and allowing property owners to build smelting plants. Do you not see that?

There is actually not a lot of daylight. It is a difference of opinion about how to regulate land use. To dress it up as a property rights issue, as I point out, is incorrect.

There's a ton of daylight, you're being deliberately obtuse. For neighborhoods with residential zoning, I believe that you may build residences as you see fit. You wish to exercise dominion over others and would prevent SFH property owners from building duplexes. I can see that you're entrenched in your opinion, so we can leave it at that.

Again, you concede that there should be limits to what people can and cannot do on their property. We differ in what that is. You want to change the status quo to fit your own prerogatives. You are not an advocate for property rights or freedom. You just want people to be able to do on their property what you want them to do and don’t want them to do what you don’t want. In that we are alike.

Sigh, you’re a freedumb-er.

In fact, it is removing zoning rules to allow dense housing that makes people more free — by allowing them to live in more places.
NIMBY’s who want to keep our current insane zoning laws usually just are greedy and selfish and want their property values to go up without regard to the rest of society. It’s not so far off from the endpoint of embracing Koch-style freedumb. Then, you get Somalia, where everyone is selfish and so only the very rich have a good life. In contrast, American-style freedom involves doing what’s right for society.

In this case, that’s upzoning- so that current property owners cannot hoard all the available land and control new housing. In the Koch case, that means taxing the crap out of wealth and preventing billionaires from hoarding all the wealth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, this is relevant to DC.

It applies to any place where land is restricted, yet people really want to live. DC, Seattle, New York, Boston, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, LA – every big, productive, talent-magnet city in the US.

In all of those cities, housing prices are going way way up. That's a supply of land and demand for housing issue.
And Berlin and Holland have faced that, and they're findiing new solutions.

Paris is late to the game. Housing prices there are CRAZY. So Paris has been trying to adopt the ideas above. DC and American cities are way late.

If you re-read carefully, DC already has all of this stuff.

- Public housing
- Multi-generational housing
- Group houses

Check, check and check. It just indicates to me that you haven’t been here very long and should get to know the place before trying to change policies.

(I can do snark too I see you don't know much about housing, and you also didn't read the article.

In many European cities there are downtown 5 bedroom apartments for families with kids. How many of them are there in the DMV? Miniscule numbers.
Public workforce housing in DC: nearly none. In European cities teachers can afford to live in most of the city. Not here. DC's telling teachers to go live in PG County.
Group houses for non-college kids: nearly none.

Look, good-faith people can critique any one of the above ideas. Many are a bit outside our experience. But some of them are good. And we should talk about them.

But it's just absolute denial to say "DC already has this." It's like saying the sky is black or my uncle is my grandma. Just massively incorrect.

Interesting, when I was looking for a house twenty years ago, DC and Federal HUD were practically giving houses away to DC employees. There was the officer and teacher next-door programs and more. Most of those who took advantage of those programs, purchased homes and multi-unit houses for cheap, turned them into rental units, and continued to live in their beloved Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania neighborhoods. In the 90's police, fire and teachers could buy $30.00 houses with low-interest rehab loans for homes in Logan Circle.The public workers did not want to live in DC then, what makes you think they all want to live here now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, this is relevant to DC.

It applies to any place where land is restricted, yet people really want to live. DC, Seattle, New York, Boston, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, LA – every big, productive, talent-magnet city in the US.

In all of those cities, housing prices are going way way up. That's a supply of land and demand for housing issue.
And Berlin and Holland have faced that, and they're findiing new solutions.

Paris is late to the game. Housing prices there are CRAZY. So Paris has been trying to adopt the ideas above. DC and American cities are way late.

If you re-read carefully, DC already has all of this stuff.

- Public housing
- Multi-generational housing
- Group houses

Check, check and check. It just indicates to me that you haven’t been here very long and should get to know the place before trying to change policies.

(I can do snark too I see you don't know much about housing, and you also didn't read the article.

In many European cities there are downtown 5 bedroom apartments for families with kids. How many of them are there in the DMV? Miniscule numbers.
Public workforce housing in DC: nearly none. In European cities teachers can afford to live in most of the city. Not here. DC's telling teachers to go live in PG County.
Group houses for non-college kids: nearly none.

Look, good-faith people can critique any one of the above ideas. Many are a bit outside our experience. But some of them are good. And we should talk about them.

But it's just absolute denial to say "DC already has this." It's like saying the sky is black or my uncle is my grandma. Just massively incorrect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

Just so you're aware, there's a lot of daylight between allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their property and Somalia.

I guess the difference is that you want to control what people can and cannot do on their property. Got it. Thanks.

I don't know if you're being ironic or something, but that is your position. You want to dictate that people cannot build duplexes on their SFH property. You want to dictate that people cannot build accessory dwelling units on their property. You want to dictate that multifamily housing shouldn't be build in Ward 3.

Your position is that you want to allow people to build what they want but only if it meets the criteria that you want. Our positions are the same. We just disagree on the criteria. You just want to replace your judgment with others judgment.

No, you're still wrong. If you want to keep your SFH in Ward 3, that's fine! But I reject your desire to exercise dominion over what other people choose to do with their properties.

But you didn’t say that. You specifically said that noise and pollution should not be allowed. Therefore, you do not want to give people the ability to exercise dominion over their property.

I'm not the same poster who said that. But, to be fair to the poster who did say that, there's a lot of daylight between allowing property owners to build duplexes and allowing property owners to build smelting plants. Do you not see that?

There is actually not a lot of daylight. It is a difference of opinion about how to regulate land use. To dress it up as a property rights issue, as I point out, is incorrect.

There's a ton of daylight, you're being deliberately obtuse. For neighborhoods with residential zoning, I believe that you may build residences as you see fit. You wish to exercise dominion over others and would prevent SFH property owners from building duplexes. I can see that you're entrenched in your opinion, so we can leave it at that.

Again, you concede that there should be limits to what people can and cannot do on their property. We differ in what that is. You want to change the status quo to fit your own prerogatives. You are not an advocate for property rights or freedom. You just want people to be able to do on their property what you want them to do and don’t want them to do what you don’t want. In that we are alike.

Sigh, you’re a freedumb-er.

In fact, it is removing zoning rules to allow dense housing that makes people more free — by allowing them to live in more places.
NIMBY’s who want to keep our current insane zoning laws usually just are greedy and selfish and want their property values to go up without regard to the rest of society. It’s not so far off from the endpoint of embracing Koch-style freedumb. Then, you get Somalia, where everyone is selfish and so only the very rich have a good life. In contrast, American-style freedom involves doing what’s right for society.

In this case, that’s upzoning- so that current property owners cannot hoard all the available land and control new housing. In the Koch case, that means taxing the crap out of wealth and preventing billionaires from hoarding all the wealth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

Just so you're aware, there's a lot of daylight between allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their property and Somalia.

I guess the difference is that you want to control what people can and cannot do on their property. Got it. Thanks.

I don't know if you're being ironic or something, but that is your position. You want to dictate that people cannot build duplexes on their SFH property. You want to dictate that people cannot build accessory dwelling units on their property. You want to dictate that multifamily housing shouldn't be build in Ward 3.

Your position is that you want to allow people to build what they want but only if it meets the criteria that you want. Our positions are the same. We just disagree on the criteria. You just want to replace your judgment with others judgment.

No, you're still wrong. If you want to keep your SFH in Ward 3, that's fine! But I reject your desire to exercise dominion over what other people choose to do with their properties.

But you didn’t say that. You specifically said that noise and pollution should not be allowed. Therefore, you do not want to give people the ability to exercise dominion over their property.

I'm not the same poster who said that. But, to be fair to the poster who did say that, there's a lot of daylight between allowing property owners to build duplexes and allowing property owners to build smelting plants. Do you not see that?

There is actually not a lot of daylight. It is a difference of opinion about how to regulate land use. To dress it up as a property rights issue, as I point out, is incorrect.

There's a ton of daylight, you're being deliberately obtuse. For neighborhoods with residential zoning, I believe that you may build residences as you see fit. You wish to exercise dominion over others and would prevent SFH property owners from building duplexes. I can see that you're entrenched in your opinion, so we can leave it at that.

Again, you concede that there should be limits to what people can and cannot do on their property. We differ in what that is. You want to change the status quo to fit your own prerogatives. You are not an advocate for property rights or freedom. You just want people to be able to do on their property what you want them to do and don’t want them to do what you don’t want. In that we are alike.