Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Guygan t1_j5ag8m6 wrote

Reply to comment by IamSauerKraut in MaineHousing ready to spend $21 million to provide overnight shelters this winter by Shake-Spear4666

> if a person lives according to what they earn thru their own hard work, then they've earned the right to live as they wish

Found the libertarian.

4

gingerbreadguy t1_j5bo0ca wrote

I don't think idiotic zoning rules are libertarian. To me the libertarian stance would be to have as few regulations as possible and see if these "401k millionaires" can compete with deep pocketed developers who could spring up multiunits, make more money off that land than a single McMansion could bring, and increase the tax base, bring in more businesses now that they have a growing market, and raising property values over time. (Okay, caring about increasing the tax base isn't very libertarian.) But I guess popular libertarianism has strayed pretty far from original principles anyway.

Btw these potential farms would be better served by not being overtaken by and competing with suburban sprawl and development. Density at an inner core would hopefully help rural areas stay truly rural. It actually cruelly takes up potential farm land to force non farmers to develop in this way.

1

IamSauerKraut t1_j5ak7eh wrote

I guess that's a bad thing, eh? If I take what I earn and buy what I want, that's bad because... someone wants to work at crack donald's and they don't want to walk to far to get there? I'm guessing that putting in extra hours and saving up for something better is bad, too, eh? Because "libertarian."

Under your theory, I should never have bought anything better than a yugo.

0

gingerbreadguy t1_j5boqzl wrote

The zoning as described that you're defending is a market manipulation so you're (unfairly by your own logic) excluding multiunit developers from competing against you. This zoning isn't a free market--it's a politically imposed regulation that favors current SFH owners at the expense of others. But it doesn't even favor those same owners in the long run. They'd have way more long term wealth if they allowed dense development. So they're just short sighted hoarder ding dongs.

3

IamSauerKraut t1_j5c5nzn wrote

>This zoning isn't a free market--it's a politically imposed regulation that favors current SFH owners at the expense of others.

Zoning is very much a political creature, true. Not sure it was ever intended to be "free market," whatever the heck that means in this context. Its purpose is to provide different zones for different uses within a municipal entity. It neither favors nor disfavors single family homes.

Single family home zoning is intended to provide areas, i.e., zones, where single detached homes are the only type of structure (aside from a detached garage) that may be built on one specific lot. The zoning allows for the formation of residential areas in which other types of intrusive construction, ie, high-density housing, industrial or manufacturing, warehouses, transfer stations, XXX uses, etc., are not allowed. Those types of uses are allowed in other areas of the municipality (indeed, most states require a municipality to provide zones for other uses) within those specific types of zones.

Zoning of any type has long been a controversial subject. I understand why those who advocate for doing away with single family housing so, but outside of Maine rezoning away from single family homes has resulted in increased density, increased crime and increased gentrification of older and more stable neighborhoods. It all may sound great in theory, but the result is not always what the loudest advocates expect.

1