[WillPostForFood]

If the alleged people actually said this, and they wanted to "maintain high prices", then why would they oppose more building? If they believed "supply and demand don't work at all", then more supply wouldn't hurt their goal of maintaining high prices.

[tptacek]

A former trustee in the inner-ring suburb in which I live owns and manages rental housing throughout the municipality and is a vocal opponent of building new housing, and of the argument that supply and demand functions in the housing market. I could screenshot him for you, but you have no idea who he is, so: just take my word for it, these aren't "alleged" people. They're a major force in local politics around the country, which is where this fight is primarily being fought.

[bombcar]

Leveraged investors in real estate become incredibly "conservative" really fast - not politically but in the "don't ever change anything holy shit I'm on a knife edge" even if the changes would be a net benefit for them.

[darksaints]

For the same reason that NIMBYs care so much about urban trees or spotted owls. They don't actually give a shit about them, they just are willing to say or do anything to sabotage the process of increasing housing supply.

[eszed]

I'm as big a YIMBY as you'll find, and urban trees are really important to making a city a nice place to live. There's no contradiction to those positions - just, you know, build more housing and plant more trees. (Spotted owls, of course, have nothing to do with urbanism, so I don't know how they got dragged in here.)

[noosphr]

Being a NIMBY I want to live in the neighbourhood I bought a house in, not the one someone who can leave with a months notice feels like turning it into.

[darksaints]

Being a homeowner, you get a title to your lot, not your entire neighborhood. You have no legal claim on your neighbor's home. If you want a legal claim on your neighbor's home, join an HOA. Or just buy it.

[noosphr]

You do. It's called zoning.

[darksaints]

I'd be willing to bet you every last dollar on the planet that if you read your deed, you will find zero claims to any particular zoning. Zoning is not a transferable property right. It can be changed for any reason at any time.

[ckemere]

I’d love to take that bet. My deed (in Texas) states that my lot is subject to the rules of the subdivision which include a number of zoning style restrictions. (They’re called “deed restrictions” and are very common AFAIK.)

The subdivision rules are changeable only with a supermajority vote. I believe the city (Houston in my case) is prohibited by the state from unilaterally changing them.

(I wouldn’t mind more free property rights!!! I find TX “liberty” is often biased towards $$$)

[wallst07]

So can the US constitution through amendments, but it's not easy.

[mothballed]

... with a vote. And subject to the takings clause.

The government can also just take your deed and property, again subject to the takings clause, so long as they pay you back. Or claim someone was slinging crack there or something and not pay you back.

If you're including things subject to the democratic process all the above is on the table.

Also plenty of things written into the deed don't mean shit. It's quite common to read a deed that says something like, in more fluffed terms "no black people allowed." This got baked into lots of deeds back in the day and never got changed because removing covenants to a deed is usually next to impossible. It doesn't mean dick because again the government can simply add or subtract by fiat what your deed actually means.

What your deed is and isn't is a lot closer to how zoning works than you think. Ranchers found this out when their transferrable private property grazing rights tracing back to the very founding era of the USA got usurped by the government and ultimately the BLM who turned around and actually said they're public federal property (which resulted in things like, the Bundy standoff).

[mpyne]

Zoning belongs to all the voters in the municipality, not just the homeowners.

[vkou]

It's a beautiful state of affairs when owners of property can collude for their interests with almost no restrictions, but worker unions are almost entirely defanged.

[noosphr]

With good reason: https://www.cfmeuinquiry.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0...

I have paid between $3,000 and $6,000 personally to organized crime so a bunch of bogans can buy American suvs to kill cyclists more efficiently.

[Izikiel43]

I have a bridge to sell you

[bruce511]

I think this us a fair feeling. One chooses a house based in part on the area as the specifics of the house itself. Wanting the neighborhood to remain unchanged is a reasonable desire.

Unfortunately, as much as you desire it, it's not something you can control. Neighborhoods change all the time. That good school you moved to be close to can decline, people with the wrong politics can move in next door, the convenient mall may close.

Yes, local politics gives you a vote. But of course we all get the same vote, homeowners and wannabe homeowners.

So, I think your want is valid, alas though you have no rights to your neighborhood and so your want is just what you want.

Of course you should stand up for your wants. But wants are not rights. So it's equal to everyone else's wants.

I'm upvoting you because your desire is not invalid. However, and I don't mean this perjorativly, your wants don't legally count for much. Just as much as any other person.

[bombcar]

Part of the problem (or the solution depending on what side you stand on) is that only residents get a say, and often you find that the renters become just as nimby as the owners, especially if rent controls or other advantages are in place.

And those outside have a very hard time voting where they want to live but don't.

(The old solution was to make a new city that was like you wanted, with blackjack and hookers, hell forget the city we'll just build the strip!)