But markets change, and sometimes people lose when that happens, and you're not due any compensation when that happens. If you invest in tech stocks you'll make a killing most of the time. Sometimes you'll lose half your investment.
That's literally the whole point of markets - there's no guarantee, and you don't have damages (in the legal, someone-now-owes-you-something sense) when it goes wrong.
You have the right to buy whatever property you want and can afford, but you don't have the right - for the most part - to impose restrictions and covenants on other people's property just to prop your values up, especially without their consent.
Given that, I don't fault homeowners for trying to reduce this risk as much as possible. For many people, a home is the most expensive thing they ever buy, and it makes logical sense for people to try to protect the value of it. Not everyone wants every transaction they do to boil down to bet at a casino. If I could engage in local politics to reduce risk, I am going to do that.
I think the asbestos plant is a good analogy. Nobody moves into their home expecting a nuisance to be built next door.
It's a ridiculous analogy because nobody is buying residential property, or property anywhere close to residences, to build industrial processing plants.
It's an analogy, not an example. Nobody wants industrial processing plants built next door, just like nobody wants a 5 story apartment building built next door. They're both nuisances, at least in rural or sparse suburban neighborhoods.
I think the objection that many people would indeed weight the asbestos factory as a more severe nuisance than the apartments. Equal weighting seems like odd affectation here.
That's simply not true. It may not be happening to your friends & family, but it happens frequently. One high profile flash point is oil drilling & facilities, which in Colorado can be built as close to your house as 500 feet.
A home is not a share of stock. The purpose of a home is not to be an equity to trade in the markets. The purpose is to live in it, enjoy the neighborhood, raise kids, etc.
So trying to think of it as just a trade in a market misses the point why people care about their homes.
Furthermore, a home and a community are a place that you build and take part in, which can take a significant fraction of your life. My mom has spent the last decade working on her garden, amending the soil, and growing a bunch of fruit trees. There's only enough time to do that maybe 5 times in one's life.
The thing georgists ignore when they say it's good to kick people out so land can be used more "productively" is that stability is what enables society. There's no point in making your surroundings better or contributing to society if you're going to be forced out in the name of "productivity" once things are nice, and it makes sense to become anti-social if that's the deal.
Currently we make it illegal for the current owner-resident to choose to bulldoze their single family house and build a quadplex and live in one unit. If you don't want to redevelop your lot that's perfectly fine, but why restrict your neighbor's property rights? The current system just rewards those lucky enough to see their neighborhood appreciate in value. Once it does newcomers are priced out and we have an equilibrium of urban sprawl, housing inflation outstripping inflation, and ever longer commutes.
Imagine if groceries were sold on a 30 year contract. If you chose the right grocery district you'd eventually get a sweeter and sweeter deal as your right appreciated. In the most competitive grocery districts, newcomers would have to bid $1 million to for the right to access groceries in that area. Or rent it at $3000/mo. Faced with a too high cost to buy into a centrally located grocery district, many would have to commute an hour each way to stock their pantry.
> Currently we make it illegal for the current owner-resident to choose to bulldoze their single family house and build a quadplex and live in one unit.
Not sure who "we" is there, but as an absolute statement that's not true.
I see quite a few lots around here that used to be a house that have been converted into 4/6/8-plexes (depending on lot depth).
That's literally the whole point of markets - there's no guarantee, and you don't have damages (in the legal, someone-now-owes-you-something sense) when it goes wrong.
You have the right to buy whatever property you want and can afford, but you don't have the right - for the most part - to impose restrictions and covenants on other people's property just to prop your values up, especially without their consent.