Hacker News Reader

Comment by ok_dad | Hacker News Reader

Why do you want to limit people’s property rights for looks? Why does a row of buildings need to be exactly aligned? This type of thing and HOAs are a bane upon property owners. I’m glad I don’t have an HOA, and I’ll never understand the push to not allow semi-organically grown cityscapes. You need some zoning limits, but do it Japan style rather than for looks.

View on HN

Why do you want to limit people’s property rights for looks?

Literally is an overused word, but it fits here:

A covenant is literally a property right!

Covenant is the equivalent of a Eula poisoned into software you've purchased. If you own it you ought have the ability to disable the Eula. A covenant is weird because it more often than not is contract entered unilaterally by some dead guy with himself somehow under the fiction it is an agreement with the land itself, it's not clear who the counterparty even is.

The major problem with EULAs is the power disparity between the buyer and seller. It’s me vs Microsoft and I can’t practically opt out of MS Word. A secondary problem is that no one knows what’s in them because no one reads them.

A real estate deal is nothing like that. The buyer and seller have roughly equal power and everyone is represented by lawyers.

Equal power is if you had any control over the covenant. In most cases, it’s a take it or leave it situation. That’s not equal power, that’s a complete lack of it. I personally don’t see how a covenant on a property is anything other than the attempt to control the living world from the grave, and shouldn’t be allowed. Zoning laws can change with the times, they’re sufficient to protect the property owners from major nuisances.

Zoning laws require an entire legislature to enact or change. A covenant only runs between the parties to the covenant. This is such an absurd point that is repeated here.

Because some of the USA (notably the north east) still gives a shit about the communities where they live rather than embracing rugged frontier individualism a la "trust no one, and get yours first."

Just because you own something doesn't mean you get a free pass to be a nuisance to others. Laws are there to keep society together, not to enable antisocial proclivities.

Check out Japan zoning laws, pal. I’m not some rugged individual, but I still believe in reasonable freedoms. Japan doesn’t have issues with nuisances with their zoning system. Far from it.

That's a cultural artifact. The same as why HOAs proliferated outside the puritan colonies: people could not be trusted to self-govern and self-regulate towards a common good.

Japan doesn't have issues with nuisances because -- culturally -- they're more aware of the effect their actions have on the world around them. The same cannot be said for a large portion of the U.S.A.

I'm of the opinion freedom as a detached goal for its own sake is a puerile pursuit, and a big driver of why we can't have nice things.

Are you sure / do you have specific Japanese knowledge?

My gut assumption, not having Japanese knowledge, was always that the production needs of WWII incentivized their mixed commercial -residential system.

It does seem that a mixed commercial -residential system would work better with a conscientious of neighbors society, but the zoning itself is also key

A very, very right-wing coworker once said to me: "There is no such thing as society. There is no such thing as common good. These are fictions created to control you."

I was happy he had identified our fundamental disagreement so that we didn't have to argue further.

Yes, now throw him out deep into the Mongolian steppes and see how he fares without modern supply chains.

Everyone's a libertarian until you take away the fruits of industry.

Mutual benefit is a thing, industry works fine when everyone is driven by selfishness as no one agrees to a transaction unless both parties are better off.

I'd much sooner live with that coworker in the steppes than cheerman mao or other charlatans in Asian history proclaiming about the common good.

Yeah this is why I bought land with no HOA and no covenants and basically no codes and liberal zoning. Sure the roads are dirt 4x4 and my neighbors have livestock and wild noises at all times but if I wanted to regulate other land I'd buy it myself rather than using violence of enforcers sent in to stop it.

If you want 8 ft setback, simple solution. Build 16 ft from your property line,problem solved even if your neighbor hits the edge.

Adding a covenant to a deed is a property right, I think wanting to know invalidate them is anti-property rights.

My parent's house in the Bay Area came with (Now unenforceable) covenants dictating that PoC cannot live there. The can and should be changed as necessary.

But it is anti property rights to force someone to rent or sell to poc. Of course without government influence this becomes a dumb business plan because it depressed the utility of your property and hands business to competitors.

I would argue government should eliminate racial discrimination laws as it will just shake itself out in the market and it actually makes things harder on poc.

In a world where humans are have rational, then your argument would be correct. Alas that's not the world we live in, as history keeps telling us.

Firstly, let's consider "2 groups". This might be racial, or straight/queer or religion or immigrant status or wealth or whatever. This issue crops up all over history (think Irish immigrants) - society has a habit of splitting into us and them.

Ultimately the split is economic - one group contains much economic power, (which is largely analogous with political power) the other far less. The group with the economic power is seeking to preserve it, the other group is trying to move economically upwards.

So to your first point - exclusivity might depress utility, but it increases value. The free market offers high premiums to exclusivity. So far from being a dumb business plan, it maximized business returns.

Above all, rich people want to live in a bubble of rich people - and zoning laws, the free market, etc (controlled by rich people) work towards this goal.

Then we toss in the notion of "my home is an investment." When you see your home as a store of wealth, then you make communal decisions to preserve that wealth (at all costs.) Will that new bridge, school, office block, anything, make the value of my home go up or down? Pretty much nothing rlse matters.

From this arises push-back laws that try and regulate the worst of these tendencies away. They're almost always fighting the inclinations of the haves to the have-nots. They are often contentious because they go against the natural inclinations of the economically advantaged.

Fundamentally your argument is flawed because those with economic power work hard to keep it. Part of that is actively working against the interests of those without. The market is very much not free.

>I would argue government should eliminate racial discrimination laws as it will just shake itself out in the market and it actually makes things harder on poc.

Yeah, many people did, and then it turned out that it wasn't working!

If the covenant was added by a dead guy and the counterparty doesn't exist but now it's enforced by a government court against the wishes of the property owner who owns the 'right' is it really property rights at that point? I'm willing to be convinced but it's not super clear to me.

It's a property right for whoever would benefit. If no one benefits, then who is enforcing it? The gov't doesn't do so voluntarily, covenants are enforced through the civil court system.

I'd argue this is a bit different than your typical suburban HOA restrictions.

Cities are shared spaces, and design consistency is pleasing to humans. Beautiful architecture and good city planning are obviously subjective, but aesthetically, design consistency creates a sense of harmony, unity, and comfort compared to a disjointed hodgepodge without a cohesive architectural through line. Functionally, it can also promote things like walkability and sustainability, making it a nicer place to live and work and visit.

The 99% Invisible podcast recently had an episode about Sante Fe, NM. The city has strict guidelines for architecture and design which have ultimately been a big factor in the city's success as a tourist destination. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/roman-mars-describes-...

When I see a city with organic development, I feel cozier than with the cities that all look the same and were built all the same. I think the American idea of “unity” in these matters is a bit insane and very exclusionary.

I wonder if this is a cultural thing imported by the original immigrants to the nation or some other factor. The American desire for uniformity is almost German. There needs to be "consistency" and "unity" in design. This is probably why so many houses are all grey and stuff. I much prefer the organic Asian form of things, and I think the US (which is generally quite awesome) would be well improved with that.

If there's one thing you can say about America, it's that we're nowhere near as independent and individualistic as the rest of the world. New York is tentpole of homogeneity compared to Barcelona or Lyon.

Come to Tokyo if you want to see a city full of radically-different buildings right next to each other.

But ask any normal American, and they'll tell you the city is "ugly" because all the buildings don't look the same.

I meant "unity" the design principle, not the patriotic sense.

Reasonable restrictions and a bit of city planning don't preclude organic development, New York is probably the most organic city in the US. I'm not advocating for every city to be completely uniform and same-y and soulless, just cohesive and thoughtful. Cohesive != uniform.

https://www.invisionapp.com/defined/unity-principle-design

I think we probably agree mostly. I’m also talking about design. I prefer a less constrained design system for a city, I think it gives life. Trying to control every bit of the look of a place makes it boring and conservative, IMO. In the USA, I also think that design unity is used to get rid of undesirable persons, and keep things a certain way for certain types of people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com