Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rottimer t1_j5c2wcb wrote

I’m the end, it almost always comes down to money. If I own a house on a tree lined street with other houses, I’m not going to be very happy seeing those trees come down, a large building goes up that now obscures the view I used to have - and I may have to deal with months or years of construction and the negative things that come with that. During the process and even after it, the value of my home drops substantially.

That’s often why people vote and protest against these things. The money. Even in Manhattan - if I have a view of the River and a sky scraper is built across the street and I now have the view of someone’s window and get less light - obviously the value of the apartment goes down - so I might find reasons to oppose that skyscraper from going up.

That’s not to say it doesn’t need to happen. But development should probably be encouraged in underutilized previously commercial areas (like what DUMBO was 30 years ago, before places where you can expect opposition.

13

CactusBoyScout t1_j5dmxn7 wrote

Yep. There’s a parking lot in the Seaport area that’s been locked in lawsuits with neighbors for decades all trying to stop the parking lot from becoming housing.

Why? It would block rich people’s views and lower their condo’s value.

I like what California is doing. Every city must submit a plan for building enough new housing accommodate population growth. And if they fail to do it, the state takes over and rubber stamps housing permits as fast as they come in.

9

ctindel t1_j5ie0hk wrote

If they’re that rich why don’t they just buy the parking lot and put it to rest. Other buildings have purchased air rights of neighboring buildings to prevent taller buildings from blocking the view.

1

09-24-11 t1_j5guaoh wrote

This is how I see it as well. While I don’t “feel bad” for people losing their property value I 100% understand why those people are NIMBY and fight against development.

2