Comment by twoodfin
10 hours ago
Why should society value stability of your quality of life (which is a pretty nebulous bundle of your preferences and environment—neither of which we can bet on being stable in any event) over the interests of all those people who want to live on land that can readily support them—and without putting any true undue burden on your ability to do the same on your land?
Why shouldn't society value stability of one's quality of life?
"MOAR PEOPLE PER UNIT OF LAND = BETTER" is not a law of the universe that we must all obey, it's a preference too.
Because you would be upset if a developer bought every house on your block and converted them to eight-plexes and rented them out to Section 8 tenants, and we should provide some level of protection against that from happening.
I can be upset, but why should I expect the government to “protect” me from that feeling? It’s a free country.
We’re not talking about a sewage treatment plant or even a data center, we’re talking about fellow members of our community living in code-compliant housing.
Because we have decided as a society to protect people from bad outcomes regardless of whether they want to be protected or not. See also unemployment insurance, social security disability insurance, requiring drivers to carry motor insurance, Medicaid, etc.
This includes zoning laws that protect incumbent property owners from loss of property value by massively changing the character of the surrounding properties.
As much as I would love to live in the free country you describe, it’s not the one we get to live in. And since that’s not the America that exists in reality, there is nothing wrong with people using these rules to protect themselves.
I would add that these aren’t one sided restrictions. They’re reciprocal. A typical property owner can’t convert their property to an eight-plex, and conversely, they can and should expect the same level of protection.
I wouldn't be upset, actually.