[Karrot_Kream]

You buy adjacent property instead of insisting that everyone does the same thing with their property as the homeowner growing things? Invoking "externalities" as if everyone wants to do the same thing (growing things) on their property is exactly how you end up with America's suburban monoculture.

[pandaman]

No, invoking externalities as they exist and affect people around you. If your neighbors don't grow things and don't mind your building a high-rise then they will let you rezone.

I am not sure if you had been outside or only get your information from HN's strongtowns and notjustbikes fans but IME there are apartment complexes and mixed use buildings (apartments and retail) everywhere in the US. Nobody forbids building those on principle.

[Karrot_Kream]

> No, invoking externalities as they exist and affect people around you. If your neighbors don't grow things and don't mind your building a high-rise then they will let you rezone.

You're prioritizing existing neighbors and uses over new ones. You didn't mention that in your previous post. That's different. Now you're saying that buying property gives you implicit rights over light on your property. Does that mean if flight traffic blocks the light on your property for a few minutes a day that it's not allowed? How many minutes is allowed? What other implicit rights are granted with your property? See how this is a minefield?

> I am not sure if you had been outside or only get your information from HN's strongtowns and notjustbikes fans but IME there are apartment complexes and mixed use buildings (apartments and retail) everywhere in the US. Nobody forbids building those on principle.

... They do? Look at your town's zoning map. I'm looking at mine, and the vast majority of it is zoned for SFH. "on principle" is meaningless, to abide by zoning code you can only build up to what zoning code allows. In my town it's almost completely single family. "had been outside", strongtowns, or notjustbikes are immaterial here, the zoning code is what matters and is enforced. If I wanted to build multifamily housing that would be illegal here.

[pandaman]

What are the "new neighbors"? Developers who want to build overpriced apartments in a nice neighborhood? They are not neighbors. If you mean someone who lives in the neighborhood and wants to build an apartment then it's an existing neighbor and he or she has the same rights as everyone else.

" I'm looking at mine, and the vast majority of it is zoned for SFH".

And? SFH lots will take a lot of area by construction: each houses a single family so you need a lot of those. It would be insane to have more commercial lots than SFH, who is going to provide business for that many shops? I see apartments and townhomes everywhere too. My city is Austin, which apparently is suffering from the "housing crisis" more than most cities.

[Karrot_Kream]

> What are the "new neighbors"? Developers who want to build overpriced apartments in a nice neighborhood? They are not neighbors.

That's your opinion. Not mine. I'm fine with developers building next to me. My partner and I live in older MFH housing and we love it. We're glad for the option.

> I see apartments and townhomes everywhere too.

I presume you're a programmer. "seeing" is not believing. Look at your zoning map. The zoning map has the truth. My zoning map has an order of magnitude more SFH zoning than MFH zoning. The only way to hit parity between MFH residents and SFH residents, which isn't even a goal but is a hypothetical, would be to build Manhattan-style skyscrapers, which nobody in this neighborhood wants. Most of the US is the same. I haven't looked at Austin's zoning map but I presume it's the same.

[pandaman]

"Neighbors" is a real word with a common definition, developers living far away do not fit that. And I find nothing unusual in that people living away have less priority over the local matters than people living in that locale.

>My zoning map has an order of magnitude more SFH zoning than MFH zoning

And? You just confirm that MFH and commercial lots exist in your area too. Is the word "monoculture" is as flexible as the word "neighbors" and actually means that the MFH zoning is not on par with SFH zoning? I give you that, but I don't see any sensible definition of "monoculture" that fits that.

[jgwil2]

You're being pedantic and quibbling over terminology, but ultimately your position appears to be that we should continue to create an artificial housing scarcity in proximity to city centers, such that the only way to have a reasonable commute is either (a) already owning property in a city or inner suburb or (b) being rich enough to buy in now. Why don't you try arguing for that position instead of nitpicking comments disagreeing with you?

[josephcsible]

> Does that mean if flight traffic blocks the light on your property for a few minutes a day that it's not allowed? How many minutes is allowed?

Even if you had a 24/7 stream of airplanes, as close together as the FAA allows them to fly, wouldn't that still only cast a shadow on your property for a miniscule fraction of the time?

[Karrot_Kream]

Right so what's the amount? What guidelines are there? Can people fly drones over your property? You see what I'm getting at? Implicit rights associated with your property are at best implicit. When I walk outside I'm not entitled to good smelling air or having a bug-free sphere surrounding myself. Relying on these implicit rights is fraught in a zone with frequent conflict (aka neighbors or developers willing to build other things.) Either codify what property rights entail or don't reach for a right that you only dubiously have. We're seeing this play out throughout the US right now as people litigate to figure out what explicit property rights are actually granted.