Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm not here to defend unnecessary zoning restrictions, but your argument here is that the right to not be affected by the externalities of someone else's decisions should be limited to the uber-wealthy?.

It's completely reasonable to believe that a given person should be capable of quiet enjoyment of their property without having to purchase everything remotely close to it.



If you want to live in a very desirable area and you also want to have very few neighbors, you should have to pay for that luxury. Right now that luxury is effectively subsidized for a few people who are “grandfathered in”, thanks to the market distortion created by zoning.


Why should somebody be allowed to keep others out of property that they are not paying for. I find your contention competent wrong on all counts.


That cuts both ways; why should somebody be allowed to induce a negative impact on property that they are not paying for?


Prohibiting others in an entire area is a far far bigger "negative externality."




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: