Expensive Minneapolis suburbs to be blighted by apartment buildings

[Dan Druff]

You really don't have a fucking clue, do you? What does this have to do with collective ownership? This is people with PRIVATE property being allowed to build WHAT THEY WANT on THEIR OWN PROPERTY. If this was socialism then people could say "no we dont want that" and it wouldnt happen.

Do you think the rent money is going to the local residents? or private companies?

Once again Druff makes a statement about a political system he knows nothing about, has likely never formally studied or even read any of it's major texts.

Go back to criticising social justice warriors.

(by the way, we all know what you mean by undesirables)

I didn't say it was collective ownership. However, I said that this was a way for the many to degrade the fruits of the labor from the individual, by denying these individuals the ability to live in safe neighborhoods amongst themselves.

You wrote, "This is people with PRIVATE PROPERTY being allowed to build WHAT THEY WANT on THEIR OWN PROPERTY", but that's a huge oversimplification.

Zoning laws are extremely important, as the lack of them can destroy both the value and enjoyment of all the properties in the area.

What if I was allowed to wreck my house and replace it with a strip club? It's my property, right? Why shouldn't I have a right?

Because it would destroy the neighborhood, lower property values, and cause distress for all of the neighbors (well, at least the ones who aren't single men).

Let's take it a step further. Let's say I was allowed to set my own house on fire because I enjoyed seeing it burn. See any problem with doing that, even if it's my own property?

Zoning laws exist to prevent others from fucking up the value/enjoyment of what you own, which is a pretty damn good reason for them to exist.

Note that this law doesn't simply change zoning for certain neighborhoods which might benefit from it. It makes single family zoning ILLEGAL in all Minneapolis neighborhoods.

Oh wait, are you still debating the definition of the word "socialism" with me?

That's a dumb debate.

You described this as "deregulated capitalism", which it definitely isn't, as this is being done with the intent of busting up the expensive white neighborhoods by allowing multi-family housing there. Again, yes, some businesses will benefit from this, but that doesn't make it a capitalist policy when its point is to create equalization in neighborhoods.

[Dan Druff]

How were the previous zoning laws a problem?

Completely unnecessary. I live in a condo and my next door neighbor has a multimillion single family house. Those complaining about property values need to stop clutching pearls, more people in neighborhoods revitalize them and create value.

Do you not realize that they could have easily done this without changing any laws?

They could have simply re-zoned any areas which would have overall benefited from the addition of multi-family structures.

In fact, that sort of thing happens all the time.

The unusual situation here is that Minneapolis just made it ILLEGAL to have ANY neighborhoods with single family home zoning.

[DonaldTrumpsHairPiece]

It is a fact that low income housing is a breeding ground for all types of crime, violent crime.

It is also a fact that moving those types of residence into new buildings is only a way to put lipstick on a pig for a short time. Within a matter of years it looks just like the old buildings and its criminal cancer spreads.

Giving low income housing new life is literally a waste.

Now I sound callus and of course it is not all or even a majority of residence but we live in a world where we bomb other countries, kill thousands of their civilians and say oh well casualty of war move along. So saying too bad to these people shouldn't make us flinch.

Droppin Truth Bombs since 08 .... December 08/2018, I'm getting old and miserable.

[JohnCommode]

I am generally opposed to regulations and laws that exist for the purpose of social engineering, either of a liberal or conservative nature. Overly restrictive zoning, forced busing, and rent control fall into this category. It is reasonable to forbid a multi family building from being built right next to a single family home. That would be unreasonably punitive. It is not reasonable to ban them completely. It would not be the worst thing in the world for children from these neighborhoods if they have to grow up with some kids from different backgrounds. After all, this is the world that they will have to deal with as adults. Those who wish for a more conservatively socially engineered environment can always move to private gated communities, if they can afford to. Whether they can afford to or not is of no concern to the public sector and should have no bearing on zoning regulations.



unreasonable vs acceptable

[limitles]

This kind of thing is happening all around Vancouver as well, biggest problem is the adding of more vehicles onto already congested roads and a lot of the apartments being sold to off shore people who are purchasing them for investment or a place to live if they have to make a quick getaway from the shitty places they live or to avoid getting busted for the shady shit they are involved with. Another issue is when they build these thousands of apartments infrastructure is also added and because a lot of the places stay empty the shops don’t get any business they end up closing and lots of empty retail shops everywhere.
This has gotten so bad the city of Vancouver and areas around B.C. have introduced a heavy tax on empty residents to try and convince owners to rent instead of leavythem empty.

The road congestion here is insane and getting worse, attempting to leave North Vancouver between 2 and 5 pm is near impossible especially if there is a accident or a jumper on one of the bridges.
Have noticed I. The last ten years Lots of apartments going up and thousands more cars on the roads really fucking things up.
Enjoy!

I know what you said, underlined, is a real issue. But urban sprawl is really at the heart of horrible commute times and high rises being allowed in suburbs. You can only sprawl so far before people say fuck it that's no way to live.
The option for local councils is to allow for high rise occupancy. Look at N.Y. It's been done already
People in New York don't know about owning a car or having a back yard.

[monsterj]

You really don't have a fucking clue, do you? What does this have to do with collective ownership? This is people with PRIVATE property being allowed to build WHAT THEY WANT on THEIR OWN PROPERTY. If this was socialism then people could say "no we dont want that" and it wouldnt happen.

Do you think the rent money is going to the local residents? or private companies?

Once again Druff makes a statement about a political system he knows nothing about, has likely never formally studied or even read any of it's major texts.

Go back to criticising social justice warriors.

(by the way, we all know what you mean by undesirables)

I didn't say it was collective ownership. However, I said that this was a way for the many to degrade the fruits of the labor from the individual, by denying these individuals the ability to live in safe neighborhoods amongst themselves.

You wrote, "This is people with PRIVATE PROPERTY being allowed to build WHAT THEY WANT on THEIR OWN PROPERTY", but that's a huge oversimplification.

Zoning laws are extremely important, as the lack of them can destroy both the value and enjoyment of all the properties in the area.

What if I was allowed to wreck my house and replace it with a strip club? It's my property, right? Why shouldn't I have a right?

Because it would destroy the neighborhood, lower property values, and cause distress for all of the neighbors (well, at least the ones who aren't single men).

Let's take it a step further. Let's say I was allowed to set my own house on fire because I enjoyed seeing it burn. See any problem with doing that, even if it's my own property?

Zoning laws exist to prevent others from fucking up the value/enjoyment of what you own, which is a pretty damn good reason for them to exist.

Note that this law doesn't simply change zoning for certain neighborhoods which might benefit from it. It makes single family zoning ILLEGAL in all Minneapolis neighborhoods.

Oh wait, are you still debating the definition of the word "socialism" with me?

That's a dumb debate.

You described this as "deregulated capitalism", which it definitely isn't, as this is being done with the intent of busting up the expensive white neighborhoods by allowing multi-family housing there. Again, yes, some businesses will benefit from this, but that doesn't make it a capitalist policy when its point is to create equalization in neighborhoods.

Druff, zoning laws have nothing to do with you burning your house down, you can burn your house down anytime you want to(in terms of zoning laws). And secondly, this zoning law has nothing to do with commercial property(like a strip club). Three, multi-tenant units do not make any area naturally unsafe on a per/capita basis, unless you have proof?

[monsterj]

It is a fact that low income housing is a breeding ground for all types of crime, violent crime.

It is also a fact that moving those types of residence into new buildings is only a way to put lipstick on a pig for a short time. Within a matter of years it looks just like the old buildings and its criminal cancer spreads.

Giving low income housing new life is literally a waste.

Now I sound callus and of course it is not all or even a majority of residence but we live in a world where we bomb other countries, kill thousands of their civilians and say oh well casualty of war move along. So saying too bad to these people shouldn't make us flinch.

Droppin Truth Bombs since 08 .... December 08/2018, I'm getting old and miserable.

Too bad your "truth bombs" are non-sequitr to Druff's example.

[Dan Druff]

I didn't say it was collective ownership. However, I said that this was a way for the many to degrade the fruits of the labor from the individual, by denying these individuals the ability to live in safe neighborhoods amongst themselves.

You wrote, "This is people with PRIVATE PROPERTY being allowed to build WHAT THEY WANT on THEIR OWN PROPERTY", but that's a huge oversimplification.

Zoning laws are extremely important, as the lack of them can destroy both the value and enjoyment of all the properties in the area.

What if I was allowed to wreck my house and replace it with a strip club? It's my property, right? Why shouldn't I have a right?

Because it would destroy the neighborhood, lower property values, and cause distress for all of the neighbors (well, at least the ones who aren't single men).

Let's take it a step further. Let's say I was allowed to set my own house on fire because I enjoyed seeing it burn. See any problem with doing that, even if it's my own property?

Zoning laws exist to prevent others from fucking up the value/enjoyment of what you own, which is a pretty damn good reason for them to exist.

Note that this law doesn't simply change zoning for certain neighborhoods which might benefit from it. It makes single family zoning ILLEGAL in all Minneapolis neighborhoods.

Oh wait, are you still debating the definition of the word "socialism" with me?

That's a dumb debate.

You described this as "deregulated capitalism", which it definitely isn't, as this is being done with the intent of busting up the expensive white neighborhoods by allowing multi-family housing there. Again, yes, some businesses will benefit from this, but that doesn't make it a capitalist policy when its point is to create equalization in neighborhoods.

Druff, zoning laws have nothing to do with you burning your house down, you can burn your house down anytime you want to(in terms of zoning laws). And secondly, this zoning law has nothing to do with commercial property(like a strip club). Three, multi-tenant units do not make any area naturally unsafe on a per/capita basis, unless you have proof?

The burning house was obviously an extreme example. I was making a point of how laws controlling what you can do with your private property are not necessarily a bad thing.

Multi-tenant buildings do not inherently make an area unsafe, but they attract more non-families and temporary residents, who on the whole are less pleasant to have as neighbors. No, I can't prove it, but I think it should be obvious.

BTW, I am not talking about older, cheaper areas where beat up houses are converted into upscale condos. That's clearly a different story. But that's where the city comes in, and they're supposed to intelligently decide where the neighborhood as a whole will benefit from multi-family properties, and where it will not.

Here that decision is being removed, and it will become illegal in Minneapolis for any neighborhood to be zoned for single family homes.

I know that, if I was moving to that area, I would specifically avoid the city of Minneapolis for that reason, and instead buy in a suburb where I know the neighborhood will stay the way it is.

You can make all the pain-in-the-ass Jew jokes about me that you want, but I'm actually the type of neighbor people would want in a residential community. I'm middle-aged, have a stable family, don't make a lot of noise, don't commit crimes, and nobody in my family is a nuisance. Guys like me aren't going to buy homes in an upscale neighborhood where multi-family buildings can be erected at any time.

Even young sonatine expressed alarm at the thought of this occurring.

Don't you think it's better for the city to decide on the zoning on a case-by-case basis, rather than outlawing single family home neighborhoods?

[limitles]

Druff, zoning laws have nothing to do with you burning your house down, you can burn your house down anytime you want to(in terms of zoning laws). And secondly, this zoning law has nothing to do with commercial property(like a strip club). Three, multi-tenant units do not make any area naturally unsafe on a per/capita basis, unless you have proof?

The burning house was obviously an extreme example. I was making a point of how laws controlling what you can do with your private property are not necessarily a bad thing.

Multi-tenant buildings do not inherently make an area unsafe, but they attract more non-families and temporary residents, who on the whole are less pleasant to have as neighbors. No, I can't prove it, but I think it should be obvious.

BTW, I am not talking about older, cheaper areas where beat up houses are converted into upscale condos. That's clearly a different story. But that's where the city comes in, and they're supposed to intelligently decide where the neighborhood as a whole will benefit from multi-family properties, and where it will not.

Here that decision is being removed, and it will become illegal in Minneapolis for any neighborhood to be zoned for single family homes.

I know that, if I was moving to that area, I would specifically avoid the city of Minneapolis for that reason, and instead buy in a suburb where I know the neighborhood will stay the way it is.

You can make all the pain-in-the-ass Jew jokes about me that you want, but I'm actually the type of neighbor people would want in a residential community. I'm middle-aged, have a stable family, don't make a lot of noise, don't commit crimes, and nobody in my family is a nuisance. Guys like me aren't going to buy homes in an upscale neighborhood where multi-family buildings can be erected at any time.

Even young sonatine expressed alarm at the thought of this occurring.

Don't you think it's better for the city to decide on the zoning on a case-by-case basis, rather than outlawing single family home neighborhoods?

Ok pretty clear from the third paragraph, you feel wealthier neighbors are the best to have.
Considering the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15% there will be some inequality putting everyone together.
Who has the ability to move where life is better? If you find 80% of Americans unfit to live near then fuck right off.

[GrenadaRoger]

Completely unnecessary. I live in a condo and my next door neighbor has a multimillion single family house. Those complaining about property values need to stop clutching pearls, more people in neighborhoods revitalize them and create value.

Do you not realize that they could have easily done this without changing any laws?

They could have simply re-zoned any areas which would have overall benefited from the addition of multi-family structures.

In fact, that sort of thing happens all the time.

The unusual situation here is that Minneapolis just made it ILLEGAL to have ANY neighborhoods with single family home zoning.

making the zoning change applicable to the entire city was the one thing done right by Minne--everyone shares in the burden...spot re-zoning would lead to political machinations where the richer/elite limo liberals would keep their zoning while the lower-middle class would lose theirs

yes spot-rezoning happens all the time, but where?---how many half-way houses, plastic bottle recycling centers, auto body shops and section 8 houses are located in West Lake Village, CA? not anywhere near as many as in nearby Oxnard

[v12cl]

Minnesota will work it out, like they always do.

Probably the best people in the entire USA, almost to a fault.

[GrenadaRoger]

I can understand the suspicion that this is a trick to allow apartment building owners (and construction companies) to further profit, and sold under the banner of fighting racism.

However, this is occurring in Minneapolis, which is significant.

here Druff, read up on real estate "blockbusting"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting

I see the same concept, only different location and ground-rules; (history does not repeat exactly, but it almost always rhymes)

to me, real estate people are as disreputable as used-car salesmen, Minneapolis is no exception.

I don't see law changes like this one happening without strong championing by someone that stands to benefit financial significant

[Avon Barksdale]

Minnesota will work it out, like they always do.

Probably the best people in the entire USA, almost to a fault.

So true.

I work for with a pair of brothers that came down from MN to Phx like 5 years ago, and they are just too trusting and nice lol.

Love the guys, but they come from a small town in MN and they just get taken advantage of to death out here.

[Dan Druff]

You guys are forgetting that SetOfKs is also from Minnesota.

[thesparten]

NEW FLASH:

society should "help out" it's legal "CITIZENRY"..

But who the fuck says we all share a burden!!!!!!!!

and like most created so-called social injustices, the remedy does nothing about the cure but just create more need or is a zero-sum game..

I have a strange feeling it's "set-up" to be that way.

Lollollolhahahahalololololhahalibtards

[Jayjami]

Property 101 is in session. Today’s Topic: The Evils of Zoning

Property rights (especially interests in real property) are sacred in this country. Just look at the Constitution and 5th Amendment: you cannot be deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law. This isn’t a coincidence. These are “God given, inalienable rights”. So important, that after the Civil War, they passed the 14th Amendment to make sure state and local governments could not impinge upon them.

Any zoning law is a violation of the Constitution. The government is also free under the Constitution to take your property as long as they pay for it, so the issue becomes whether there has been a “taking” of your property, because of the diminished value of your property due to the zoning law.

I, as a property owner, hate zoning laws. Why? Because I think I know what the best use is for my property. I don’t needed the government’s input, thank you. So can we live in a modern society without zoning? Absolutely. Look at Houston. 4th largest city in America. No zoining, and yes I’ve been there. It has all kinds of problems because of it’s lack of zoning, but there are a lot worse cities to live in, so it can be done.

The problem with zoning is that the most profitable use of real property is industrial, or sometimes commercial, but in the government’s eyes, single family housing is the “highest and best use” for pretty much any property. So why do we allow this blatant attack on our property rights? There is a very good reason. To protect people’s economic expectations. Whose? Generally, rich white suburbanites. God forbid, little Benjamin (or my children growing up) had to live next to a 7-11, poker room, church, or whatever. Real property owners actually vote, so politcians are responsive to them.

So how can we protect (isolate) little Benjamin from the evils of society? There is a better way. Through private covenants. Druff and his neighbors are free to impose whatever restrictions they want on their property privately (short of things like banning racial groups, etc.). These “run with the land” and are literally enforceable forever. If Druff and his neighbors for miles around agree to limit the future use of their property to residential, I have zero problem with that. In fact, Druff is more secure. Zoning laws can be changed, covenants cannot, except in the most extreme cases.

So, we can live without government zoning. Whether we should, or whether it is practical under current market conditions, is debatable, but Minnesota is a perfect example of what can happen when the government gets involved. They are using zoning for social engineering purposes.

[limitles]

Zoning is a community based decision, albeit by incompetent or crooked politicians at times, and allows for some order in a society. Residential here, strip malls there etc. Private land owners benefit more from covenants I would imagine but the PLO is in the minority. They don't get to run a community or have their vote count for more.(for them)

So again no one speaks up for the little guy like the little guy.
Democracy now