Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal
I think this right has to have some limits. What gets built on a person's property impacts neighbours as well as others who work, travel, or otherwise use the area nearby. That's what good development rules should balance - ensuring some sort of "reasonable" public benefit from development.
|
While it's true that there are some limits, it's also obvious enough that it shouldn't need to be said. All laws and rules are about balance (if they're done in a just way). No one is talking about building an ore smelting facility or a giant office tower on a residential street. The issue is that even a lot of of normal residential buildings like small apartment buildings or row houses aren't allowed in a lot of residential areas due to them not being the "taste" of the neighbours aka "neighbourhood character".
But it's also a little dangerous to use vague terms like a new developments "impact neighbours" or should provide "public benefit". The new residents will be members of the public and having a place to live will benefit them. Why should their homes need to benefit other people who aren't living in them when there's no such requirement for the existing homes? The existing homes also impact others in the sense that they occupy space that others can't use and therefore cause displacement, distorts the market, lowers average density which increases travel distances and infrastructure costs, and leads to artificial shortages. But when you place all the onus of providing public benefit and not impacting anyone on the newcomer, you have a systemic bias that favours those already established at the expense of those who need homes. Yet fundamentally the impact of not having a home is greater than the impact of having someone else living nearby.
So the takeaway is that while there needs to be balance, the current balance is skewed much too far in one direction.
Threaded Mode