From YIMBYwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Hyperlocalism, as defined in YIMBYwiki, is controlling land-use at a more local level than local government, or shifting land-use powers to a more local level. 


Private agreements

Robert Ellickson. "Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land Use Controls." (1973). Faculty Scholarship Series. 471.  http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/471.

"In Order without Law (1991) Robert C. Ellickson shows that law is far less important than is generally thought. He demonstrates that people largely govern themselves by means of informal rules-social norms-that develop without the aid of a state or other central coordinator. Integrating the latest scholarship in law, economics, sociology, game theory, and anthropology, Ellickson investigates the uncharted world within which order is successfully achieved without law. The springboard for Ellickson's theory of norms is his close investigation of a variety of disputes arising from the damage created by escaped cattle in Shasta County, California. In The Problem of Social Cost --the most frequently cited article on law--economist Ronald H. Cease depicts farmers and ranchers as bargaining in the shadow of the law while resolving cattle-trespass disputes. Ellickson's field study of this problem refutes many of the behavioral assumptions that underlie Coase's vision, and will add realism to future efforts to apply economic analysis to law. Drawing examples from a wide variety of social contexts, including whaling grounds, photocopying centers, and landlord-tenant relations, Ellickson explores the interaction between informal and legal rules and the usual domains in which these competing systems are employed. Order without Law firmly grounds its analysis in real-world events, while building a broad theory of how people cooperate to mutual advantage."


Private covenants


Homeowner associations


Neighborhood conservation districts

Discussed in Fischel, 2015 as a zoning alternative mechanism. Usually used (as name suggests) for conservation, or exclusionary purposes, but question arises of whether this legal/political structure might also be adapted to facilitate progressive development, i.e. upzoning, density, alternative housing. 


Brendan Harré - reciprocal intensification rights

neighbors agree to receiprocally increase height on border between them


from [Harré 2016]:

"New Zealand should adopt a system where neighbours can reciprocally agree to drop the shade plane and set back restrictions along their common border. This reciprocal intensification right could be implemented as a national policy statement amendment to the RMA, which all local authorities would then be obligated to implement. So in the above diagrams, if there was a section to the north or south and if the two property owners agree, then they would both have the right to build up to their adjoining boundary -utilising the appropriate building code for firewalls etc. If other adjoining neighbours disagreed, then on those boundaries the standard setback and shade plane rules would apply.

"This proposed national policy statement would be written in a way to minimise transaction costs -two neighbours being able to lodge this variation on their property title records for a small nominal fee. The national policy statement would mean this reciprocal intensification process would not require an RMA consent." 



Brendon Harré (2018). "Zoning politics for the many, not the few." Greater Auckland. January 16, 2018

"The ‘for the many not the few’ concept could also indicate what an effective intensification mechanism might be.

"I quite like London Yimby’s street by street proposal because it gives upzoning potential to many landowners not just a few. This widespread dispersal of upzoning rights should reduce the ability of individual landowners in desirable locations to extort maximum monopolistic pricing, because neighbouring streets might provide better intensification housing at a lower price.

"London Yimby’s proposal where streets cooperate to give themselves upzoning rights has some similarities to a proposal of mine where neighbours co-operate to remove setback and shade plane restrictions on their common boundary. I called my idea reciprocal intensification. A number of people have discussed this proposal and it has received some legislative backing. Peter Nunns an economist who writes for Greater Auckland most recently reviewed the idea and described it as legalising perimeter block development.



London YIMBY - local right to upzone


Excerpt from [Myers 2017]: 

"How can we use the fact that new low- or mid-rise development mainly affects neighbours on the same street? People are generally most affected by building work opposite or next door to them. The easiest way is to let individual streets decide to give themselves additional rights to extend or replace existing buildings. That would, over an extended period, allow at least 5 million more homes in London alone. Large swathes of London and other cities are covered with low-rise, often unexceptional, 20th century houses, and half of London’s homes are in buildings of just one or two floors.12 A better system would allow them to be extended or replaced with more attractive buildings, creating many more homes, if that has community support. A typical suburban plot can often easily generate a fivefold increase in dwelling space. Older buildings may also benefit from graceful extension. "If residents are asked whether every house on their street should be allowed to add one or two floors, the good news is they are often in favour, especially if they can pick a design code to make sure that the extensions are attractive.13 Every owner of a house will benefit substantially from the increased value of their property."



e.g., proposal for a portion of Brisbane, California, to secede from the city in order to support a large mixed-used development around Caltrain station there, which is opposed by many Brisbane residents who mostly live in areas further west and uphill. 

"how about letting the Baylands owners re-municipalize with another SM Co. city, or just move to SMCo jurisdiction..."