What is your most right-wing and left-wing view?

[MrPotatoTed]

36 minutes ago, NCblue1 said:

The property value question is a lot more subjective than generally stated.  I am a property owner and if I were relocating and had the choice between equal 2 properties 1 next to a walmart and one not, I'd choose the one next to Walmart.  Perhaps traffic would be worse, but wouldn't it be much more convenient to walk to walmart to get your groceries than get in a car, spend time driving, pay gas money, and hope your car doesn't get hit in the parking lot by a runaway carriage?  Homeowner's associates also make dubious claims about protecting property values.   I have a neighbor who put solar panels on the front of his house.  He is a MAGA Trumper who believes climate change is a hoax, but for economic reasons thought solar panels would benefit him.  He has a lot of trees in his backyard so the front yard is better for the panels.  The Homeowner's Association claimed it would be an eyesore and hurt property values.  I totally support his right to have panels and if I had a choice of equal properties I'd choose to live in a neighborhood with many solar panels over one that didn't allow any.  In any event, property values haven't seemed to have diminished in our neighborhood since the solar panels were installed.

  

You would be welcome to choose to buy a house next to a Walmart, and if that was something your found desirable you could likely save a good deal of money in doing so as the value of that house would be much cheaper than homes in more traditional residential neighborhoods (which still tend to have Walmarts within a ten minute drive).

 

The problem is if I pay for a house that doesn’t have a Walmart next to it because that’s unappealing to me and then, surprise, my neighbor builds a Walmart.  Or a prison.  Or a toxic waste dump.

Now my quality of life has disappeared over night, and I can’t even move because the value of my house has become functionally worthless.  Nobody is going to buy my house now.

As for the rest of what you said, you’re talking about Homeowners Associations, not zoning.  That’s an entirely different argument.  I don’t like HoAs either, which is why I’ve never lived where they were required.  Zoning laws largely render HOAs unnecessary in my experience.

[Imperator Taco Cat]

12 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

You would be welcome to choose to buy a house next to a Walmart, and if that was something your found desirable you could likely save a good deal of money in doing so as the value of that house would be much cheaper than homes in more traditional residential neighborhoods (which still tend to have Walmarts within a ten minute drive).

 

The problem is if I pay for a house that doesn’t have a Walmart next to it because that’s unappealing to me and then, surprise, my neighbor builds a Walmart.  Or a prison.  Or a toxic waste dump.

Now my quality of life has disappeared over night, and I can’t even move because the value of my house has become functionally worthless.  Nobody is going to buy my house now.

As for the rest of what you said, you’re talking about Homeowners Associations, not zoning.  That’s an entirely different argument.  I don’t like HoAs either, which is why I’ve never lived where they were required.  Zoning laws largely render HOAs unnecessary in my experience.

Two things:

First, according to a couple of studies in 2016(only data I could find) property values INCREASED when a Walmart was built.

And secondly, wouldn't toxic waste dumps be covered by environmental(air/soil quality) regulations?

Edited February 4, 2023 by Imperator Taco Cat

[MrPotatoTed]

7 minutes ago, Imperator Taco Cat said:

Two things:

First, according to a couple of studies in 2016(only data I could find) property values INCREASED when a Walmart was built.

And secondly, wouldn't toxic waste dumps be covered by environmental(air/soil quality) regulations?

When a Walmart was built literally next door?

As for toxic waste dumps, I have no doubt they’d be covered by both.

[Imperator Taco Cat]

Quote

homes within 0.5 miles of the constructed Walmart store actually sold for approximately 2.5% more than baseline, after the Walmart was built.

most precise data I could find

source:

Pope, Devin G., and Jaren C. Pope. "When Walmart comes to town: Always low housing prices? Always?." Journal of Urban Economics 87 (2015): 1-13.

[jvikings1]

Most right-wing: Eliminate almost every gun law on the books. Full self-defense protections too (maximum castle doctrine/stand your ground even when dealing with the police - when cops act outside their legal authority).

Most left-wing: End the (failed) War on Drugs.

 

[jnewt]

21 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

You would be welcome to choose to buy a house next to a Walmart, and if that was something your found desirable you could likely save a good deal of money in doing so as the value of that house would be much cheaper than homes in more traditional residential neighborhoods (which still tend to have Walmarts within a ten minute drive).

 

The problem is if I pay for a house that doesn’t have a Walmart next to it because that’s unappealing to me and then, surprise, my neighbor builds a Walmart.  Or a prison.  Or a toxic waste dump.

Now my quality of life has disappeared over night, and I can’t even move because the value of my house has become functionally worthless.  Nobody is going to buy my house now.

As for the rest of what you said, you’re talking about Homeowners Associations, not zoning.  That’s an entirely different argument.  I don’t like HoAs either, which is why I’ve never lived where they were required.  Zoning laws largely render HOAs unnecessary in my experience.

I know you're responding to a comment about the complete abolition of zoning ordinances, so this critique doesn't apply exactly to *you*... but lots of NIMBYs use this argument against abolishing exclusionary zoning requirements (i.e. prohibiting multi-family zoning, height restrictions, minimum lot requirements, minimum parking requirements, etc.) and it's a complete straw-man.

Very rarely are people actually talking about abolishing zoning altogether, yet NIMBYs reactions are always claiming that massive Wal-Marts, toxic waste dumps, or prisons are going to be built right next to their house, when in reality, residential, commercial, industrial etc., zoning will all still exist preventing anything like that from happening.

All that abolishing exclusionary zoning requirements would do would make it easier to build housing more appropriate for the local population. It's not this boogeyman that NIMBYs make it out to be. (And again, I recognize that you were commenting on a proposal for complete abolition of zoning, so this is not a critique of you, just a critique of the opposition to inclusionary zoning at-large).

Edited February 4, 2023 by jnewt

[MrPotatoTed]

32 minutes ago, jnewt said:

I know you're responding to a comment about the complete abolition of zoning ordinances, so this critique doesn't apply exactly to *you*... but lots of NIMBYs use this argument against abolishing exclusionary zoning requirements (i.e. prohibiting multi-family zoning, height restrictions, minimum lot requirements, minimum parking requirements, etc.) and it's a complete straw-man.

Very rarely are people actually talking about abolishing zoning altogether, yet NIMBYs reactions are always claiming that massive Wal-Marts, toxic waste dumps, or prisons are going to be built right next to their house, when in reality, residential, commercial, industrial etc., zoning will all still exist preventing anything like that from happening.

All that abolishing exclusionary zoning requirements would do would make it easier to build housing more appropriate for the local population. It's not this boogeyman that NIMBYs make it out to be. (And again, I recognize that you were commenting on a proposal for complete abolition of zoning, so this is not a critique of you, just a critique of the opposition to inclusionary zoning at-large).

As you identified, I was responding specifically to the argument of the post I was responding to.  I won’t claim to be a zoning expert beyond “abolishing all zoning rules and regulations is insane.” ;c)

[MrPotatoTed]

6 hours ago, Imperator Taco Cat said:

most precise data I could find

source:

Pope, Devin G., and Jaren C. Pope. "When Walmart comes to town: Always low housing prices? Always?." Journal of Urban Economics 87 (2015): 1-13.

That doesn’t necessarily surprise me — not that a Walmart causes increased housing values, but that the construction of a new Walmart may correlate with overall improved development to a region which in turn would raise housing values.  (Or even that raising house values are caused by better jobs and education, which in turn attract better residents, which in turn attract more commercial development such as a Walmart.  We know the inverse is definitely true — look up the term “food desert”, if you’re not already aware, to learn about the toxic cycle that happens when an area becomes undesirable for commercial development.  House values decrease, which decreases tax income and thus education opportunities, people become trapped, lose hope, turn to crime, grocery stores shut down because they’re tired of the crime.  No new stores will open, which means you have to take a bus 40 minutes each way to get a gallon of milk.  
 

But again, my argument was literal next door neighbor, which is what could happen if zoning laws didn’t exist.  

[jnewt]

24 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

As you identified, I was responding specifically to the argument of the post I was responding to.  I won’t claim to be a zoning expert beyond “abolishing all zoning rules and regulations is insane.” ;c)

Yea, I studied urban planning for my masters, so we talked about zoning quite a bit, and specifically the City of Houston, which is notorious for having no zoning ordinance. I'm not sure if you've ever been to Houston, but just googling "Houston zoning" will bring up some crazy pictures of what can happen without any zoning.

Here's some just for fun:

[MrPotatoTed]

14 minutes ago, jnewt said:

Yea, I studied urban planning for my masters, so we talked about zoning quite a bit, and specifically the City of Houston, which is notorious for having no zoning ordinance. I'm not sure if you've ever been to Houston, but just googling "Houston zoning" will bring up some crazy pictures of what can happen without any zoning.

Here's some just for fun:

Ha, very interesting, and exactly my nightmare scenarios. Haha.

[WVProgressive]

On 2/3/2023 at 2:38 PM, jnewt said:

I agree that steps need to be taken so the human species can avoid falling victim to the Malthusian trap, but what ethical method is there to reduce the human population? I don’t think such a method exists (unless you mean a reduction of the growth rate of the human population, which I can certainly get behind). 

Reducing the birth rate is certainly part of what I mean when I talk about ethically reducing the human population, and it can be achieved through a number of means that still value the sanctity of life. (Such as breeding licenses to ensure that genetically/socially unfit families do not reproduce, implementing a child limit, increasing the use of family planning, and contraceptives/reducing the amount of meaningless sex people have, etc.) 

But of course, that's not the whole picture. I recommend you read some of Garret Hardin, and Pentti Linkola's writings regarding Lifeboat Ethics, though they're not the be all end all as both writers have a very obvious right-wing bent which detracts from their otherwise sound arguments. They focus too much on third-world -> first-world immigration, when in my view this ignores the fact that first-world nations will need to correct for overshoot the most in both regards. Hardin's parable of a lifeboat with 90 people on it surrounded by hundreds of swimmers is rather inaccurate. The reality of human overshoot is more similar to a hundred person lifeboat filled with 150 people floating in a sea with hundreds of swimmers. Under this lens Hardin's question of "Who do we let in?" becomes the much more realistic, and challenging, "Who do we throw overboard?" with the added potential question of "Should we throw more people over in order to make room for those currently in the water?" also existing.

And again this is only focused on the overpopulation aspect of human overshoot. As I said in my response to ShortKing, overconsumption is also a massive concern. The culture of 'Consume as much as you can, do whatever you want, all is permissible' must come to end if humanity, and the Earth, is to survive.

[vcczar]

I think the population issues in developed countries can be resolved by coupling the embrace of AI in the work place and the adoption of things like the Universal Basic Income, universal healthcare, and universal education. Some people argue people will become lazy, but I think people with interests and curosity will be freed up to pursue those, while those without interests, curiosities, or are inherently lazy will be thankfully bribed away from working. 

[Zenobiyl]

Most Right Wing: Unconditionally Anti-Abortion

Most Left Wing: Supportive of M4A (or maybe supporting worker coops idk)

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by Zenobiyl