12 ms·

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the cou

by hodwik 10y ago

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bathrooms. Outlaw Zoning entirely. The nation will become more equitable economically when rich people and poor people all share the same zipcodes again. And you can do it with capitalism, you can do it by removing government instead of creating it, you can do it with freedom. Side bonus: you'll have an economic boom. Construction is an industry that creates real wealth that usually stays in the country.

pj_mukh 10y ago
As a liberal, I agree. One problem, foreign money. It is mentioned in passing in the article but Vancouver (even with more sensible building laws) is still getting screwed because foreign money keeps pouring in.
- jly 10y ago
  This is a huge point. The same thing is happening in other attractive pacific rim cities. In Auckland, they are experiencing the same problem as SF and Vancouver but the government is very active in encouraging new housing development. Because of the foreign investment, it's not enough.
- hodwik2 10y ago
  Could you please explain why the foreign investment is a problem? Every time I've heard this discussed, it's mostly been people saying "The CHINESE are buying up houses" with a racist glint in their eyes. I don't get the impression these people would be as worried if the foreign investors were of French or Irish parentage. If I've misunderstood the issue, people correct me.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    There was a time when people would've been just as worried.
  - pj_mukh 10y ago
    Well given that I'm South Asian, I don't think their race is an issue to me personally, and people in Vancouver who've brought this problem up are the most racially progressive bunch there is (including a huge native Chinese population that has been there for decades). Chinese money is flooding in because of issues in the Chinese investment market and they are increasing their investment in the SF market too now. The by-product is that the demand side is doubled up! Protectionism doesn't work, so what do we do? I'm firmly in the 'Build More' category but this one problem, I'm not sure how to solve.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      > Well given that I'm South Asian, I don't think their race is an issue to me personally First I've heard of some sort of racial friendship between Chinese and Indians. I can assure you it's not reciprocated by the Chinese.
  - namlem 10y ago
    The Chinese people who are buying up houses aren't buying them to live in, they're buying them just to speculate. The owners stay in China. It would be just as bad if they were from another country, it's just that they happen to be Chinese.
  - jbapple 10y ago
    > Could you please explain why the foreign investment is a problem? I'm not sure, but I get the impression that the concern is partly about non-resident populations. Non-residents buying homes as investments or as a hedge against corruption driving them out of their home countries uncaps demand. More demand might end up causing wealth transfer from the renter class to the owner class.
  - mc32 10y ago
    It's not because the buyers are Chinese it's mostly due to the volume of purchases affecting the market so directly. They could be "Newfies" if you had as many driving up prices so dramatically, you'd get an outcry. It happens in the US in Portland you'll occasionally see signs about No Californians. It doesn't help that many of those are not "regular" Chinese but people with money and connected, the Chinese .1%ers, so to speak, who are buying properties as a pied de terre in the event things go bad in the homeland and they need to hightail it as well as a place to park their connected money.
- nickff 10y ago
  This is a common intuitive argument, but the question that follows is why? Why must all housing be used? Could we not simply build more? Instead of looking at foreign purchases of homes as taking away an opportunity, it should be viewed as a stimulus program. The real problem seems to be that city planners are restricting new construction (to keep up home values, and allow them to 'shape' the city), and thus forcing foreign and domestic purchasers to compete instead of collaborate.
  - hodwik2 10y ago
    The irony being that Vancouver real estate is only a great investment vehicle because they've had such strict building regulations, with the view corridors law. Other cities are not such a sure investment, a spike in supply could destroy your capital overnight.
  - pj_mukh 10y ago
    How would they "collaborate" if the supply was higher? I think the point of the activist was that the demand is far too high (almost double what would be caused by normal incoming techies). My worry is that this investment is "flight-y" (they are not actually residents) if we double up supply and this investment leaves, SF becomes a Detroit that looks like Manhattan? P.S: Obviously, increasing supply to meet actual renters'/new residents' demand is a no-brainer.
  - 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
    Vacant houses tend to be vandalized, infested by pests, and otherwise fall into disrepair (e.g. there's no one there to notice a plumbing leak). This is less of an issue for individual vacant units in multi-tenant buildings.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      I'm not sure this is a problem for the types of housing purchased by foreign money. When foreigners invest in US housing, they tend to also hire property management firms that look after the property during vacancies.
  - 10y ago
- schwarrrtz 10y ago
  Yup. One possible solution we're considering in Vancouver is some kind of residency requirement - for example, if you don't live in your property (or rent it out) for more than x% of the year, you get penalized on your property taxes or something.
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  But the reason foreign money is pouring in to SF real estate rather than a zillion alternatives is that it's a good investment. And the reason for that is precisely the very restrictive policies designed to maximize real estate value. So if you legalize housing construction, the foreign money problem will disappear as well.
  - wwweston 10y ago
    For a few years, I've been challenging people when this discussion comes up to give examples of situations where increasing housing supply resulted in falling prices. As far as I can tell, without a fundamental demand drop, this rarely if ever happens. And you've hit on one of the reasons: the investors who want in want into a market where real estate commands the prices it does.
    - repsilat 10y ago
      Downtown Auckland, 2005/6. There was a big increase in the number of small apartments available. Prices did fall, and people I know "lost money" because of it. It was still a great thing for the city. Auckland itself is growing quickly, and the price of houses is (like in many other places) outrageous. Apartment rents are still relatively sane, though.
    - cynicalkane 10y ago
      Generally, people don't build housing supply with the intent of oversaturating the market and losing money!
      - SonjaKT 10y ago
        no but who said everything that happens is what was intended
    - Decade 10y ago
      Well, from the last discussion where Sonja participated: Philadelphia, additional housing, plus market crash. It doesn’t say that prices on existing housing went down, but the new “luxury” housing did not sell for close to the expected luxury prices. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10370964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10370964 http://grist.org/cities/urban-activists-set-out-to-sue-san-franciscos-suburbs/ http://grist.org/cities/urban-activists-set-out-to-sue-san-f...
- gorkemyurt 10y ago
  No foreign money is good! They are not sending their kids to local schools, or driving down on 101 every day to cause traffic. They also pay way way more property tax compared to someone bought a house 20 years ago..
Retric 10y ago
There is infrastructure costs associated with new construction (schools, roads, etc.) Ideally a permit should add ~40k to cover those cost per additional dwelling which scales based on actual costs. Otherwise you keep having people who live in an area pay for new schools, water treatment plants, etc several times.
- cpitman 10y ago
  Shouldn't this be covered by property taxes and the additional income tax of the new residents?
  - mountaineer22 10y ago
    Not all states have income tax, and why should all existing real property owners subsidize the new developer's impact on the existing shared infrastructure?
    - cderwin 10y ago
      Because the impact is not that of the developer; it's not the developer's kids that will be going to the local school, it's not the developer who will be using the local infrastructure to commute to work everyday. It's the homeowner. The cost of the homeowner's burden on the public infrastructure should rest firmly on the homeowner's shoulders, not on the person who happened to build and sell a home to him.
      - sokoloff 10y ago
        That's why people are proposing to dramatically increase the fees on new residential building permits above: precisely so that the homeowner bears the cost of those infrastructure investments. (Don't confuse that the developer pays the permit fee in the first place from who actually pays it. Obviously, the new homeowner will be the one ultimately paying for that permit fee.) I'm not saying I agree with it (I see problems both ways); I'm just trying to explain it.
vasilipupkin 10y ago
There are permitting processes for a reason. So that we do not have an epidemic of shoddily built houses that fall down or burn down, etc. or, don't end up with a nuclear power plant in the middle of a quite residential street. Granted, some limits are too restrictive and should be removed and/or relaxed. Others should be kept and/or enhanced. Blanket removal of all limits is just as stupid as limits that are too restrictive
- wmccullough 10y ago
  Removing zoning permits does not equate to shoddily built houses. This is what you call, a straw man.
  - tamana 10y ago
    A straw house, even
  - vasilipupkin 10y ago
    Did you see the or in my argument ? Zoning is what prevents someone building a nuclear waste plant ( or an industrial plant ) on a quiet, tree lined street.
- gedy 10y ago
  Zoning is not the same as permitting - you can remove zoning restrictions without removing safety inspections, etc.
  - vasilipupkin 10y ago
    As I said, some zoning restrictions and/or permitting procedures in some places are too restrictive and should be relaxed. That in no way implies that it's a good idea to get rid of all zoning restrictions
mountaineer22 10y ago
As a 'liberal', I disagree. It has nothing to do with race, it is economic disparity. These laws exist, in some extent, to preserve the existing character of the area, for better or worse. If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved (not necessarily to the same extent as Starchild in the article). What you are suggesting, would lead to a lower quality of life for everyone, rich and poor. It would increase crime and decrease sanitation. Do you own real property?
- hodwik2 10y ago
  >"If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved." I've been considering campaigning for Donald Trump. Given his background, I think he may be the most likely president to push for the sort of anti-Zoning laws I'm interested in. Perhaps you're right. >"Do you own real property?" Yes, I own a home in a wealthy suburb just outside of Philadelphia. I am well aware of the growing pains this would cause. But that can't stop us, this is a human rights issue, as far as I am concerned.
  - mountaineer22 10y ago
    So, if I bought the house next door to you, and had 8 separate families live there (I would be charging them rent), you would be okay with that? Also, since garbage storage would be a problem, I told my tenants they can just toss their garbage bags over the fence into your yard, and you would take care of it. And since parking is now an issue with 15 additional cars, and friends visiting in their cars, I suggested they use your driveway or yard as parking. Are you okay with that?
    - ec109685 10y ago
      The parent poster is not advocating for trespassing and liter.
      - mountaineer22 10y ago
        Nor am I, but what can he do to enforce his rights at that point? My tenants don't car about his property, and now he has to figure out which tenant violated his rights? Yet, all these families now have legal rights and protections to live next door to him. Call the police? Now you are taking a disproportionate amount of taxpayer resources to protect this specific individual's private property rights. What if it keeps happening? Assign a special task-force to my specific rental property (the one next-door to the parent poster)?
rokhayakebe 10y ago
The nation will become more equitable economically when rich people and poor people all share the same zipcodes again. I have seen this in Atlanta where someone making an ok living, say $50,000, can live in one of the greatest neighborhood.
surfmike 10y ago
I totally agree that building limits are bad. But zoning and planning still have some virtues. I think we need something to swing the balance towards more housing without throwing out zoning. So perhaps targets for housing units created, and if a city isn't doing enough, everything is already up zoned to, say, 4x the density previously allowed.
llamataboot 10y ago
Arguably though, people are implicitly willing to pay quite the premium for racial and class segregation. Why would a purely 'free market' approach (hard when there are so many externalities involved) work better than an inclusionary zoning approach? (rather than the exclusionary zoning regimes of, for example, most suburbs in he US) - Encourage/demand high-density infill mixed-income housing.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  People can pay for class segregation. I suspect if we let them, it would become separated from race segregation over time.
  - llamataboot 10y ago
    Depends on your time scale I guess. Arguably class and racial segregation are highly linked in the US and is the primary way that racial disparities continue to be reproduced so persistently. See, for example, http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674018211 http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674018211
- varelse 10y ago
  One problem is that one need not be particularly racist for segregation to occur spontaneously: http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segregation/ http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segreg...
  - llamataboot 10y ago
    Just because something could exist, doesn't mean it is what is happening though. I think all complex systems modeling has things to teach us, and I've looked a lot at Schelling and other agent-based models, but arguably they don't hold up to empirical evidence. http://www.nyudri.org/research-index/2009/empirics http://www.nyudri.org/research-index/2009/empirics
ktRolster 10y ago
If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. That's a bad idea, too. For example, in Fremont right now, there's a development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the students who will live there have no real school. Also, there are serious environmental impacts that need to be considered every time you build a new housing unit. Outlawing zoning completely is a bad idea too: you'll end up with housing units built next to noisy factories or smelly plants, and then the people in the new houses will complain to get the factory shut down, even though the factory was there before they were, and it was making noise when they moved in. Furthermore, when you build new housing, you need to consider how those people are going to get transportation, water and electricity (and heating in most places). You can't just throw up a housing unit anywhere and expect those things to be built magically.
- nickff 10y ago
  What you say assumes that people want to purchase anything a developer builds, anywhere, at any price. In reality, market forces encourage developers to build nice homes in good areas well served by various amenities (which are publicly and privately available). The problem is that development is so tightly restricted in most areas, that new residents have few options. In short, you are blaming the market for the results of zoning and land use restrictions.
  - ktRolster 10y ago
    In short, you are blaming the market for the results of zoning and land use restrictions. I didn't blame the market for anything. You have reading comprehension issues. Fix that.
  - saeranv 10y ago
    I agree with the sentiment of vastly deregulating urban zoning conditions. However there are a couple of places where the market forces will lead to poor long-term community development. For example, outside of urban areas the market tends to incentivize suburban sprawl. In Toronto, you can see this in the GTA region like Markham or Brampton: vast tracts of cookie-cutter residential neighborhoods, without any consideration for integration with mixed use. Zoning does compound this, with density limitations, and parking requirements. However, the developers are perfectly happy with the high return on investment they can get building cheap single-family houses. I also abhor zoning and what it does to cities. But look at Japanese cities to see what good, minimal zoning can achieve, without prohibitive height limits, nonexclusive zoning etc. More on Japanese zoning: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
raldi 10y ago
We don't have to remove all limits; we can get a ton of benefit just by adjusting the stupid ones. For example, the ones that require seas of single-family houses around most of San Francisco's major transit hubs: https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/3qu9uv/i_made_maps_of_all_the_fourstory_zoning/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/3qu9uv/i_made...
- jeffdavis 10y ago
  And also height restrictions to protect views. You could still ask for nice architecture so views are pleasant.
no_wave 10y ago
You're not a conservative, you're a libertarian.
- hodwik2 10y ago
  That's the same thing in the US. "Libertarian" is just what Republicans call themselves when most of their friends are Democrats, and they're worried people will think they're racist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
  - saryant 10y ago
    That's certainly not true.
- rayiner 10y ago
  OP may be a libertarian, but you can't determine that from what he posted. There is a strong conservative case for fighting segregation enabled by zoning. I'm currently living in a rich suburb of DC. The local high school, one of the best public schools in the country, is underenrolled. Per student spending in this county is far lower than in DC proper, because we're not trying to make up for all of the consequences of segregated inner city neighborhoods by ineffectually shoveling money at schools. If we could get some lower-income people into dense housing in this area, we could replace expensive DC teachers with cheaper Fairfax County teachers and probably achieve better outcomes for kids to boot. A lot of the symptoms liberal policies try to fight are caused by the underlying disease of segregated cities and suburbs. If we had more integrated communities where minority populations weren't relegated to looking in from the outside, the demand on the welfare state would go down.
edderly 10y ago
It's been tried and the problem is that you end up with slums. http://www.victorianweb.org/history/slums.html http://www.victorianweb.org/history/slums.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_End_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_End_of_London
nihonde 10y ago
Japan (which is not a perfect analogue) handles several of these issues nicely, IMO. I live in a city of a few million people. Nearly every building is multi-tenant. Even homes are designed with two- or three-generation residents in mind. Large, functional apartment complexes are the norm. Many people live in so-called one-room apartments because they're affordable and available. I'm not familiar with zoning rules here, but just looking around tells me that there is far less segregation of commercial, industrial, and residential space. Also, housing in Japan is designed with a twenty to thirty year lifespan, so almost every space is relatively new. For example, I rent a brand new four-bedroom, two-bath house in a lovely, safe neighborhood with good schools and parking for two cars and a few bikes, for US $1,700 per month. (That is considered shockingly expensive to most people here, but I'm anchored on the American markets.) This way of living might offend some people's aesthetics or their idea of what they deserve, but it works very well.
- hodwik 10y ago
  In Japan in most places the height limit for wooden structure is 4 stories (higher than most of the US), they have fewer restrictions on building spacing, and fewer restrictions on how much sq. feet per person is required. That makes it possible to have much denser towns. They're one step closer to the ideal.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  Im in japan too and there are very clear zoning rules per area. There are very clear bedtowns with no industries or commerces but its probably not near where you live. There is very little freedom to build new things that is why you get extremely expensive apartments and rents. This prevents people to live on their own unless they are married and get enough income for that. And its the first time i hear someone say that 30 years limit for buildings is a good thing. In practice they use shitty and cheap materials, have no isolation so its too hot in summer and cold in winter and it looks like shit. They dont build anything to last and its not a good aspect since its wasteful.
  - nihonde 10y ago
    Yes, I can understand your views. I guess it's possible to disagree about this. I've seen how bad things are in America in terms of affordable housing, so the options in Japan seem quite nice by comparison. As for bedroom communities without commerce, I would attribute that to: (1) an excellent public transportation infrastructure, and (2) an overall migration of livelihoods to Tokyo/Osaka-scale urban centers. My experience (in Nagoya) is that there are offices and light industry mixed with residential in every direction until you reach 里山. In fact, many people that I know operate businesses out of their homes, including light manufacturing, restaurants, etc.——something you cannot do in most American cities. And finally, I can certainly understand your view on the "disposable" nature of housing here, but I still think it makes good sense. This is earthquake and typhoon country, so the codes change with advances in technology. The industrial nature of the housing business here drives the cost way down. In America, residential construction projects are notoriously difficult, over-budget, and late. Compared the efficiency of scale of a company like Sekisui, American contractors are an unfunny joke. I have seen homes built in Japan with a crew of no more than three or four men, plus a few traffic guards, in just a few weeks. And they work quietly and keep the area clean. I can build a new house in my city in Japan for around US$150,000——something that is completely impossible in most American cities. (The price of land here in another matter, of course. It's very expensive.) I will never understand why Americans pour money into old houses. Even 伊勢神宮 is rebuilt every twenty years, and it's more than two thousand years old!
crdoconnor 10y ago
>The nation will become more equitable economically when rich people and poor people all share the same zipcodes again. Sure. Works great in Brazil. https://imgur.com/jRg2ZKQ https://imgur.com/jRg2ZKQ
- sokoloff 10y ago
  That "spiral staircase" of pool balconies is pretty awesome.
paulsutter 10y ago
Bad zoning is really bad, but zoning is useful. What you need is mixed offices and housing with street level retail. Coffee shops, restaurants, places to go. You also want underground transportation because parking wastes space, cars interfere with pedestrians, and stoplights are a pathetic drag on movement. Self-driving electric cars could have high utilization for underground tunnels. Like a subway, with stations in dense areas and on/off ramps to highways. Self driving cars can keep to closer tolerances (narrower tunnels, shorter following distance) and electric cars mean simpler ventilation (no carbon monoxide).
- nvader 10y ago
  I really like this idea of a subterranean highway that houses a self-driving fleet of electric cars. It seems like it would let commuters bring their own certified cars to use the system, while passengers who simply want a ride between dedicated stops could take an electric bus, perhaps.
  - paulsutter 10y ago
    I expect most people would prefer self driving uber rather than individual ownership. And I wonder if buses (analogous to subway cars) offer any advantages. Think of the average utilization of a subway tunnel. Despite the high density of people in a subway car, the vast majority of the tunnel is empty.
skewart 10y ago
> Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. This. Outlawing dense, urban growth does real harm to people's lives, and to the environment. It's one of the clearest examples of xenophobia and greed coallescing to extract wealth and concentrate it in the hands of the privileged few. Just because it's, say, a crowd of mostly Bernie Sanders supporters pushing to "preserve neighborhood character" in the Berkeley hills at a local city council meeting, and not a skyscraper board room full of bankers in expensive suits, doesn't make it any less nefarious or the impact any less real.
- hodwik 10y ago
  >"and to the environment" That's a great point, and one that has been largely missed here. I used to live in a city with aggressive green-space initiatives. (85% of the city had to be green space.) Locals would tell me that it was "good for the environment". I'm sorry, but no. Green space initiatives force sprawl. They're bad for the environment, full stop.
  - makomk 10y ago
    Suppose there were no green space initiatives. Then the only green space you could be sure of having would be your own garden. How would this discourage sprawl?
    - skewart 10y ago
      Peole wouldn't have to leapfrog over the greenspace to find a place to live. I think urban green space is great, as long as it also comes with housing density. The problem is excessive greenspace coupled with mandatory low-density single family dwellings. You end up creating more sprawl and more carbon emissions as the people who can't afford to live in the close-in suburbs sprawl outward. Also, I say all of this as an environmentalist. Suburban parks do more to protect homeowner wealth than they do to protect our planet. Carbon emissions, ocean acidification, widespread habitat loss (think palm oil plantations in Borneo, not racoon territory in your backyard) are far more pressing environmental problems than suburban densification is by any stretch of the imagination. Seeing a few trees torn down to make way for an apartment building is a very tangible loss of greenery, but it's ultimately better for the environment. Density allows people to be more efficient in their use of resources, and ultimately preserves more habitat for wildlife.
specialist 10y ago
I say this as a liberal: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. Where we may differ is enthusiasm for (de)regulation. Your rights end where my begin. I still don't want my neighbor's bad choices impacting my property's value, my personal safety. Or creating externalities which then must be covered by tax payers. Buildings must still be made to code, lest everything catches on fire. Runoff must be still be mitigated, so the hillside doesn't collapse or my basement gets flooded with sewage. Where "liberals" need better messaging is showing that protecting the environment and public health can be better for the economy. Stuff like protecting wetlands to minimize flooding, reducing runoff to protect waterways from pollutants and fecal matter, etc.
imaginenore 10y ago
> remove all limits Really? Like let builders cut down all trees in Central Park, NY, and build some more skyscrapers?
Spooky23 10y ago
Obligatory appendix: just don't do it where I live.
someguydave 10y ago
Totally agreed. In fact, it turns out that all the ecological, economic, and cultural arguments raised against removing zoning are thinly veiled rent-seeking. Incumbent property owners benefit immensely when you must seek government permission to build on your land (to what standard: different conversation). In then end, they are gonna shoot themselves in the foot as the big tech companies become rational and move away from san francisco toward more reasonable growing cities like Denver. Here's a study that demonstrates the control existing homeowners have over zoning policy: http://cityobservatory.org/homevoters-v-the-growth-machine/ http://cityobservatory.org/homevoters-v-the-growth-machine/
- SolarNet 10y ago
  I think some ecological zoning is necessary. But more of a "you can't build on this land" and "you can't build things like this on land near this land". There aren't any ecological reasons for zoning areas as (non-)residential areas anyway.
NotSammyHagar 10y ago
It sounds appealing to have no building limits. How about if I want to start fraking on my land near your land? Cities in Texas like Dallas don't like this, so they passed laws saying you can't have hydraulic fracturing on the land in the city, because it causes small earthquakes and could cause pollution. Guess what happened, the state legislature passed a new law saying cities couldn't pass laws against frakking.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  ...and that's why Dallas was swallowed up by a great crack in the ground.
  - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
    Dallas wasn't swallowed, but they have been having small earthquakes where they used to have none. It's much worse in Oklahoma.
MichaelBurge 10y ago
Zoning in the US should be abolished. The government shouldn't be micromanaging what individuals do with their own property. People complain that others will buy up the land next door and set up a puppy smelting plant that belches bone ashes into the air, but that's a separate issue. It's not so much the puppy-smelting that's at issue, but the ashes. I think it makes sense to force manufacturing companies to keep their pollution at bay, but not to prohibit them from using the property for any lawful purpose. If you can't observe what people are doing in a building, then it's none of your business. That said, Japan[1] has an approach to zoning that would be an improvement: They classify land into 12 different zones, 11 of which allow increasingly 'undesirable' buildings to be built. You can build a house in an industrial area or shopping mall if you want, but you can't build a factory in an area zoned for more desirable buildings. Zone 9 is for heavy manufacturing, so it doesn't allow residential or commercial buildings. For something like blocking a shopping mall, you don't actually need the government to ban someone from building one in your neighborhood. Just find 1000 like-minded NIMBYs, set up a corporation with investment money from each NIMBY, get a loan from a bank to cover the rest, build or buy a new town, and simply vote as a shareholder against Walmart's proposal to buy out your land. My view is that you have no right to stop Walmart from doing what it wants on its land, and it has no right to do what it wants on your land. [1] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
jessaustin 10y ago
If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and wherever they deem there is demand. It's hilarious that some replies to this proposition complain about the Mexicans moving in and using local services like schools and sewer treatment, while others complain about the Chinese buying and not using local services! I'm hoping that these are not written by the same "well-meaning liberals", but it does seem likely.
yourapostasy 10y ago
Decades spent in business cured me of similar notions. Externalities, reflexivity, and information+power asymmetry are (among others) unsolved problems in our capitalist systems. Pretty much anything anyone can get away with that doesn't impact the metric being measured, they will. When the metric is price, all sorts of information is lossy-encoded into that metric. I agree with the overall direction of your sentiment, it is just that ample time in the trenches of doing business has disabused me of the effectiveness of capitalism to regulate markets the way we think it does. It regulates the markets all right; the amount of human ingenuity spent trying to game the system at others' expense either now or in the future never ceases to impress me.
rsync 10y ago
"Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bathrooms. Outlaw Zoning entirely." It's called Houston. You should go there and experience it. My personal favorite was the convenience store-cum-liquor mart being run out of a residential front porch. I'm not judging. I am merely pointing out that what you describe has been done in the United States and that you should go there and check it out.
- saryant 10y ago
  Houston's a fascinating city. I lived there for a few years between leaving the Bay Area and winding up in Colorado. It's a vibrant and energetic place with a never-ending influx of new immigrant cultures from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. Very, very few American cities have embraced pluralism to quite the same extent (and no, I don't include SF on that list).
- shiftpgdn 10y ago
  You are misinformed. The city of Houston has very harsh setback and parking requirements that encourage an unending suburban style sprawl. Off the cuff it's 7 parking spots per 1000 sq ft of business and buildings in the non central business district area (about a 30x30 square block space) must be 10-20ft from the city easement.
seattle_spring 10y ago
So basically make life cramped and awful for everyone instead of just some?

by hodwik 10y ago

pj_mukh 10y ago

As a liberal, I agree. One problem, foreign money. It is mentioned in passing in the article but Vancouver (even with more sensible building laws) is still getting screwed because foreign money keeps pouring in.

jly 10y ago
This is a huge point. The same thing is happening in other attractive pacific rim cities. In Auckland, they are experiencing the same problem as SF and Vancouver but the government is very active in encouraging new housing development. Because of the foreign investment, it's not enough.
hodwik2 10y ago
Could you please explain why the foreign investment is a problem? Every time I've heard this discussed, it's mostly been people saying "The CHINESE are buying up houses" with a racist glint in their eyes. I don't get the impression these people would be as worried if the foreign investors were of French or Irish parentage. If I've misunderstood the issue, people correct me.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  There was a time when people would've been just as worried.
- pj_mukh 10y ago
  Well given that I'm South Asian, I don't think their race is an issue to me personally, and people in Vancouver who've brought this problem up are the most racially progressive bunch there is (including a huge native Chinese population that has been there for decades). Chinese money is flooding in because of issues in the Chinese investment market and they are increasing their investment in the SF market too now. The by-product is that the demand side is doubled up! Protectionism doesn't work, so what do we do? I'm firmly in the 'Build More' category but this one problem, I'm not sure how to solve.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    > Well given that I'm South Asian, I don't think their race is an issue to me personally First I've heard of some sort of racial friendship between Chinese and Indians. I can assure you it's not reciprocated by the Chinese.
- namlem 10y ago
  The Chinese people who are buying up houses aren't buying them to live in, they're buying them just to speculate. The owners stay in China. It would be just as bad if they were from another country, it's just that they happen to be Chinese.
- jbapple 10y ago
  > Could you please explain why the foreign investment is a problem? I'm not sure, but I get the impression that the concern is partly about non-resident populations. Non-residents buying homes as investments or as a hedge against corruption driving them out of their home countries uncaps demand. More demand might end up causing wealth transfer from the renter class to the owner class.
- mc32 10y ago
  It's not because the buyers are Chinese it's mostly due to the volume of purchases affecting the market so directly. They could be "Newfies" if you had as many driving up prices so dramatically, you'd get an outcry. It happens in the US in Portland you'll occasionally see signs about No Californians. It doesn't help that many of those are not "regular" Chinese but people with money and connected, the Chinese .1%ers, so to speak, who are buying properties as a pied de terre in the event things go bad in the homeland and they need to hightail it as well as a place to park their connected money.
nickff 10y ago
This is a common intuitive argument, but the question that follows is why? Why must all housing be used? Could we not simply build more? Instead of looking at foreign purchases of homes as taking away an opportunity, it should be viewed as a stimulus program. The real problem seems to be that city planners are restricting new construction (to keep up home values, and allow them to 'shape' the city), and thus forcing foreign and domestic purchasers to compete instead of collaborate.
- hodwik2 10y ago
  The irony being that Vancouver real estate is only a great investment vehicle because they've had such strict building regulations, with the view corridors law. Other cities are not such a sure investment, a spike in supply could destroy your capital overnight.
- pj_mukh 10y ago
  How would they "collaborate" if the supply was higher? I think the point of the activist was that the demand is far too high (almost double what would be caused by normal incoming techies). My worry is that this investment is "flight-y" (they are not actually residents) if we double up supply and this investment leaves, SF becomes a Detroit that looks like Manhattan? P.S: Obviously, increasing supply to meet actual renters'/new residents' demand is a no-brainer.
- 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
  Vacant houses tend to be vandalized, infested by pests, and otherwise fall into disrepair (e.g. there's no one there to notice a plumbing leak). This is less of an issue for individual vacant units in multi-tenant buildings.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    I'm not sure this is a problem for the types of housing purchased by foreign money. When foreigners invest in US housing, they tend to also hire property management firms that look after the property during vacancies.
- 10y ago
schwarrrtz 10y ago
Yup. One possible solution we're considering in Vancouver is some kind of residency requirement - for example, if you don't live in your property (or rent it out) for more than x% of the year, you get penalized on your property taxes or something.
BurningFrog 10y ago
But the reason foreign money is pouring in to SF real estate rather than a zillion alternatives is that it's a good investment. And the reason for that is precisely the very restrictive policies designed to maximize real estate value. So if you legalize housing construction, the foreign money problem will disappear as well.
- wwweston 10y ago
  For a few years, I've been challenging people when this discussion comes up to give examples of situations where increasing housing supply resulted in falling prices. As far as I can tell, without a fundamental demand drop, this rarely if ever happens. And you've hit on one of the reasons: the investors who want in want into a market where real estate commands the prices it does.
  - repsilat 10y ago
    Downtown Auckland, 2005/6. There was a big increase in the number of small apartments available. Prices did fall, and people I know "lost money" because of it. It was still a great thing for the city. Auckland itself is growing quickly, and the price of houses is (like in many other places) outrageous. Apartment rents are still relatively sane, though.
  - cynicalkane 10y ago
    Generally, people don't build housing supply with the intent of oversaturating the market and losing money!
    - SonjaKT 10y ago
      no but who said everything that happens is what was intended
  - Decade 10y ago
    Well, from the last discussion where Sonja participated: Philadelphia, additional housing, plus market crash. It doesn’t say that prices on existing housing went down, but the new “luxury” housing did not sell for close to the expected luxury prices. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10370964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10370964 http://grist.org/cities/urban-activists-set-out-to-sue-san-franciscos-suburbs/ http://grist.org/cities/urban-activists-set-out-to-sue-san-f...
gorkemyurt 10y ago
No foreign money is good! They are not sending their kids to local schools, or driving down on 101 every day to cause traffic. They also pay way way more property tax compared to someone bought a house 20 years ago..

Retric 10y ago

There is infrastructure costs associated with new construction (schools, roads, etc.) Ideally a permit should add ~40k to cover those cost per additional dwelling which scales based on actual costs. Otherwise you keep having people who live in an area pay for new schools, water treatment plants, etc several times.

cpitman 10y ago
Shouldn't this be covered by property taxes and the additional income tax of the new residents?
- mountaineer22 10y ago
  Not all states have income tax, and why should all existing real property owners subsidize the new developer's impact on the existing shared infrastructure?
  - cderwin 10y ago
    Because the impact is not that of the developer; it's not the developer's kids that will be going to the local school, it's not the developer who will be using the local infrastructure to commute to work everyday. It's the homeowner. The cost of the homeowner's burden on the public infrastructure should rest firmly on the homeowner's shoulders, not on the person who happened to build and sell a home to him.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      That's why people are proposing to dramatically increase the fees on new residential building permits above: precisely so that the homeowner bears the cost of those infrastructure investments. (Don't confuse that the developer pays the permit fee in the first place from who actually pays it. Obviously, the new homeowner will be the one ultimately paying for that permit fee.) I'm not saying I agree with it (I see problems both ways); I'm just trying to explain it.

vasilipupkin 10y ago

There are permitting processes for a reason. So that we do not have an epidemic of shoddily built houses that fall down or burn down, etc. or, don't end up with a nuclear power plant in the middle of a quite residential street. Granted, some limits are too restrictive and should be removed and/or relaxed. Others should be kept and/or enhanced. Blanket removal of all limits is just as stupid as limits that are too restrictive

wmccullough 10y ago
Removing zoning permits does not equate to shoddily built houses. This is what you call, a straw man.
- tamana 10y ago
  A straw house, even
- vasilipupkin 10y ago
  Did you see the or in my argument ? Zoning is what prevents someone building a nuclear waste plant ( or an industrial plant ) on a quiet, tree lined street.
gedy 10y ago
Zoning is not the same as permitting - you can remove zoning restrictions without removing safety inspections, etc.
- vasilipupkin 10y ago
  As I said, some zoning restrictions and/or permitting procedures in some places are too restrictive and should be relaxed. That in no way implies that it's a good idea to get rid of all zoning restrictions

mountaineer22 10y ago

As a 'liberal', I disagree. It has nothing to do with race, it is economic disparity. These laws exist, in some extent, to preserve the existing character of the area, for better or worse. If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved (not necessarily to the same extent as Starchild in the article). What you are suggesting, would lead to a lower quality of life for everyone, rich and poor. It would increase crime and decrease sanitation. Do you own real property?

hodwik2 10y ago
>"If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved." I've been considering campaigning for Donald Trump. Given his background, I think he may be the most likely president to push for the sort of anti-Zoning laws I'm interested in. Perhaps you're right. >"Do you own real property?" Yes, I own a home in a wealthy suburb just outside of Philadelphia. I am well aware of the growing pains this would cause. But that can't stop us, this is a human rights issue, as far as I am concerned.
- mountaineer22 10y ago
  So, if I bought the house next door to you, and had 8 separate families live there (I would be charging them rent), you would be okay with that? Also, since garbage storage would be a problem, I told my tenants they can just toss their garbage bags over the fence into your yard, and you would take care of it. And since parking is now an issue with 15 additional cars, and friends visiting in their cars, I suggested they use your driveway or yard as parking. Are you okay with that?
  - ec109685 10y ago
    The parent poster is not advocating for trespassing and liter.
    - mountaineer22 10y ago
      Nor am I, but what can he do to enforce his rights at that point? My tenants don't car about his property, and now he has to figure out which tenant violated his rights? Yet, all these families now have legal rights and protections to live next door to him. Call the police? Now you are taking a disproportionate amount of taxpayer resources to protect this specific individual's private property rights. What if it keeps happening? Assign a special task-force to my specific rental property (the one next-door to the parent poster)?

rokhayakebe 10y ago

The nation will become more equitable economically when rich people and poor people all share the same zipcodes again. I have seen this in Atlanta where someone making an ok living, say $50,000, can live in one of the greatest neighborhood.

surfmike 10y ago

I totally agree that building limits are bad. But zoning and planning still have some virtues. I think we need something to swing the balance towards more housing without throwing out zoning. So perhaps targets for housing units created, and if a city isn't doing enough, everything is already up zoned to, say, 4x the density previously allowed.

llamataboot 10y ago

Arguably though, people are implicitly willing to pay quite the premium for racial and class segregation. Why would a purely 'free market' approach (hard when there are so many externalities involved) work better than an inclusionary zoning approach? (rather than the exclusionary zoning regimes of, for example, most suburbs in he US) - Encourage/demand high-density infill mixed-income housing.

stcredzero 10y ago
People can pay for class segregation. I suspect if we let them, it would become separated from race segregation over time.
- llamataboot 10y ago
  Depends on your time scale I guess. Arguably class and racial segregation are highly linked in the US and is the primary way that racial disparities continue to be reproduced so persistently. See, for example, http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674018211 http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674018211
varelse 10y ago
One problem is that one need not be particularly racist for segregation to occur spontaneously: http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segregation/ http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segreg...
- llamataboot 10y ago
  Just because something could exist, doesn't mean it is what is happening though. I think all complex systems modeling has things to teach us, and I've looked a lot at Schelling and other agent-based models, but arguably they don't hold up to empirical evidence. http://www.nyudri.org/research-index/2009/empirics http://www.nyudri.org/research-index/2009/empirics

ktRolster 10y ago

If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. That's a bad idea, too. For example, in Fremont right now, there's a development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the students who will live there have no real school. Also, there are serious environmental impacts that need to be considered every time you build a new housing unit. Outlawing zoning completely is a bad idea too: you'll end up with housing units built next to noisy factories or smelly plants, and then the people in the new houses will complain to get the factory shut down, even though the factory was there before they were, and it was making noise when they moved in. Furthermore, when you build new housing, you need to consider how those people are going to get transportation, water and electricity (and heating in most places). You can't just throw up a housing unit anywhere and expect those things to be built magically.

nickff 10y ago
What you say assumes that people want to purchase anything a developer builds, anywhere, at any price. In reality, market forces encourage developers to build nice homes in good areas well served by various amenities (which are publicly and privately available). The problem is that development is so tightly restricted in most areas, that new residents have few options. In short, you are blaming the market for the results of zoning and land use restrictions.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  In short, you are blaming the market for the results of zoning and land use restrictions. I didn't blame the market for anything. You have reading comprehension issues. Fix that.
- saeranv 10y ago
  I agree with the sentiment of vastly deregulating urban zoning conditions. However there are a couple of places where the market forces will lead to poor long-term community development. For example, outside of urban areas the market tends to incentivize suburban sprawl. In Toronto, you can see this in the GTA region like Markham or Brampton: vast tracts of cookie-cutter residential neighborhoods, without any consideration for integration with mixed use. Zoning does compound this, with density limitations, and parking requirements. However, the developers are perfectly happy with the high return on investment they can get building cheap single-family houses. I also abhor zoning and what it does to cities. But look at Japanese cities to see what good, minimal zoning can achieve, without prohibitive height limits, nonexclusive zoning etc. More on Japanese zoning: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

raldi 10y ago

We don't have to remove all limits; we can get a ton of benefit just by adjusting the stupid ones. For example, the ones that require seas of single-family houses around most of San Francisco's major transit hubs: https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/3qu9uv/i_made_maps_of_all_the_fourstory_zoning/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/3qu9uv/i_made...

jeffdavis 10y ago
And also height restrictions to protect views. You could still ask for nice architecture so views are pleasant.

no_wave 10y ago

You're not a conservative, you're a libertarian.

hodwik2 10y ago
That's the same thing in the US. "Libertarian" is just what Republicans call themselves when most of their friends are Democrats, and they're worried people will think they're racist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
- saryant 10y ago
  That's certainly not true.
rayiner 10y ago
OP may be a libertarian, but you can't determine that from what he posted. There is a strong conservative case for fighting segregation enabled by zoning. I'm currently living in a rich suburb of DC. The local high school, one of the best public schools in the country, is underenrolled. Per student spending in this county is far lower than in DC proper, because we're not trying to make up for all of the consequences of segregated inner city neighborhoods by ineffectually shoveling money at schools. If we could get some lower-income people into dense housing in this area, we could replace expensive DC teachers with cheaper Fairfax County teachers and probably achieve better outcomes for kids to boot. A lot of the symptoms liberal policies try to fight are caused by the underlying disease of segregated cities and suburbs. If we had more integrated communities where minority populations weren't relegated to looking in from the outside, the demand on the welfare state would go down.

edderly 10y ago

It's been tried and the problem is that you end up with slums. http://www.victorianweb.org/history/slums.html http://www.victorianweb.org/history/slums.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_End_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_End_of_London

nihonde 10y ago

Japan (which is not a perfect analogue) handles several of these issues nicely, IMO. I live in a city of a few million people. Nearly every building is multi-tenant. Even homes are designed with two- or three-generation residents in mind. Large, functional apartment complexes are the norm. Many people live in so-called one-room apartments because they're affordable and available. I'm not familiar with zoning rules here, but just looking around tells me that there is far less segregation of commercial, industrial, and residential space. Also, housing in Japan is designed with a twenty to thirty year lifespan, so almost every space is relatively new. For example, I rent a brand new four-bedroom, two-bath house in a lovely, safe neighborhood with good schools and parking for two cars and a few bikes, for US $1,700 per month. (That is considered shockingly expensive to most people here, but I'm anchored on the American markets.) This way of living might offend some people's aesthetics or their idea of what they deserve, but it works very well.

hodwik 10y ago
In Japan in most places the height limit for wooden structure is 4 stories (higher than most of the US), they have fewer restrictions on building spacing, and fewer restrictions on how much sq. feet per person is required. That makes it possible to have much denser towns. They're one step closer to the ideal.
ekianjo 10y ago
Im in japan too and there are very clear zoning rules per area. There are very clear bedtowns with no industries or commerces but its probably not near where you live. There is very little freedom to build new things that is why you get extremely expensive apartments and rents. This prevents people to live on their own unless they are married and get enough income for that. And its the first time i hear someone say that 30 years limit for buildings is a good thing. In practice they use shitty and cheap materials, have no isolation so its too hot in summer and cold in winter and it looks like shit. They dont build anything to last and its not a good aspect since its wasteful.
- nihonde 10y ago
  Yes, I can understand your views. I guess it's possible to disagree about this. I've seen how bad things are in America in terms of affordable housing, so the options in Japan seem quite nice by comparison. As for bedroom communities without commerce, I would attribute that to: (1) an excellent public transportation infrastructure, and (2) an overall migration of livelihoods to Tokyo/Osaka-scale urban centers. My experience (in Nagoya) is that there are offices and light industry mixed with residential in every direction until you reach 里山. In fact, many people that I know operate businesses out of their homes, including light manufacturing, restaurants, etc.——something you cannot do in most American cities. And finally, I can certainly understand your view on the "disposable" nature of housing here, but I still think it makes good sense. This is earthquake and typhoon country, so the codes change with advances in technology. The industrial nature of the housing business here drives the cost way down. In America, residential construction projects are notoriously difficult, over-budget, and late. Compared the efficiency of scale of a company like Sekisui, American contractors are an unfunny joke. I have seen homes built in Japan with a crew of no more than three or four men, plus a few traffic guards, in just a few weeks. And they work quietly and keep the area clean. I can build a new house in my city in Japan for around US$150,000——something that is completely impossible in most American cities. (The price of land here in another matter, of course. It's very expensive.) I will never understand why Americans pour money into old houses. Even 伊勢神宮 is rebuilt every twenty years, and it's more than two thousand years old!

crdoconnor 10y ago

>The nation will become more equitable economically when rich people and poor people all share the same zipcodes again. Sure. Works great in Brazil. https://imgur.com/jRg2ZKQ https://imgur.com/jRg2ZKQ

sokoloff 10y ago
That "spiral staircase" of pool balconies is pretty awesome.

paulsutter 10y ago

Bad zoning is really bad, but zoning is useful. What you need is mixed offices and housing with street level retail. Coffee shops, restaurants, places to go. You also want underground transportation because parking wastes space, cars interfere with pedestrians, and stoplights are a pathetic drag on movement. Self-driving electric cars could have high utilization for underground tunnels. Like a subway, with stations in dense areas and on/off ramps to highways. Self driving cars can keep to closer tolerances (narrower tunnels, shorter following distance) and electric cars mean simpler ventilation (no carbon monoxide).

nvader 10y ago
I really like this idea of a subterranean highway that houses a self-driving fleet of electric cars. It seems like it would let commuters bring their own certified cars to use the system, while passengers who simply want a ride between dedicated stops could take an electric bus, perhaps.
- paulsutter 10y ago
  I expect most people would prefer self driving uber rather than individual ownership. And I wonder if buses (analogous to subway cars) offer any advantages. Think of the average utilization of a subway tunnel. Despite the high density of people in a subway car, the vast majority of the tunnel is empty.

skewart 10y ago

> Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. This. Outlawing dense, urban growth does real harm to people's lives, and to the environment. It's one of the clearest examples of xenophobia and greed coallescing to extract wealth and concentrate it in the hands of the privileged few. Just because it's, say, a crowd of mostly Bernie Sanders supporters pushing to "preserve neighborhood character" in the Berkeley hills at a local city council meeting, and not a skyscraper board room full of bankers in expensive suits, doesn't make it any less nefarious or the impact any less real.

hodwik 10y ago
>"and to the environment" That's a great point, and one that has been largely missed here. I used to live in a city with aggressive green-space initiatives. (85% of the city had to be green space.) Locals would tell me that it was "good for the environment". I'm sorry, but no. Green space initiatives force sprawl. They're bad for the environment, full stop.
- makomk 10y ago
  Suppose there were no green space initiatives. Then the only green space you could be sure of having would be your own garden. How would this discourage sprawl?
  - skewart 10y ago
    Peole wouldn't have to leapfrog over the greenspace to find a place to live. I think urban green space is great, as long as it also comes with housing density. The problem is excessive greenspace coupled with mandatory low-density single family dwellings. You end up creating more sprawl and more carbon emissions as the people who can't afford to live in the close-in suburbs sprawl outward. Also, I say all of this as an environmentalist. Suburban parks do more to protect homeowner wealth than they do to protect our planet. Carbon emissions, ocean acidification, widespread habitat loss (think palm oil plantations in Borneo, not racoon territory in your backyard) are far more pressing environmental problems than suburban densification is by any stretch of the imagination. Seeing a few trees torn down to make way for an apartment building is a very tangible loss of greenery, but it's ultimately better for the environment. Density allows people to be more efficient in their use of resources, and ultimately preserves more habitat for wildlife.

specialist 10y ago

I say this as a liberal: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. Where we may differ is enthusiasm for (de)regulation. Your rights end where my begin. I still don't want my neighbor's bad choices impacting my property's value, my personal safety. Or creating externalities which then must be covered by tax payers. Buildings must still be made to code, lest everything catches on fire. Runoff must be still be mitigated, so the hillside doesn't collapse or my basement gets flooded with sewage. Where "liberals" need better messaging is showing that protecting the environment and public health can be better for the economy. Stuff like protecting wetlands to minimize flooding, reducing runoff to protect waterways from pollutants and fecal matter, etc.

imaginenore 10y ago

> remove all limits Really? Like let builders cut down all trees in Central Park, NY, and build some more skyscrapers?

Spooky23 10y ago

Obligatory appendix: just don't do it where I live.

someguydave 10y ago

Totally agreed. In fact, it turns out that all the ecological, economic, and cultural arguments raised against removing zoning are thinly veiled rent-seeking. Incumbent property owners benefit immensely when you must seek government permission to build on your land (to what standard: different conversation). In then end, they are gonna shoot themselves in the foot as the big tech companies become rational and move away from san francisco toward more reasonable growing cities like Denver. Here's a study that demonstrates the control existing homeowners have over zoning policy: http://cityobservatory.org/homevoters-v-the-growth-machine/ http://cityobservatory.org/homevoters-v-the-growth-machine/

SolarNet 10y ago
I think some ecological zoning is necessary. But more of a "you can't build on this land" and "you can't build things like this on land near this land". There aren't any ecological reasons for zoning areas as (non-)residential areas anyway.

NotSammyHagar 10y ago

It sounds appealing to have no building limits. How about if I want to start fraking on my land near your land? Cities in Texas like Dallas don't like this, so they passed laws saying you can't have hydraulic fracturing on the land in the city, because it causes small earthquakes and could cause pollution. Guess what happened, the state legislature passed a new law saying cities couldn't pass laws against frakking.

jessaustin 10y ago
...and that's why Dallas was swallowed up by a great crack in the ground.
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  Dallas wasn't swallowed, but they have been having small earthquakes where they used to have none. It's much worse in Oklahoma.

MichaelBurge 10y ago

Zoning in the US should be abolished. The government shouldn't be micromanaging what individuals do with their own property. People complain that others will buy up the land next door and set up a puppy smelting plant that belches bone ashes into the air, but that's a separate issue. It's not so much the puppy-smelting that's at issue, but the ashes. I think it makes sense to force manufacturing companies to keep their pollution at bay, but not to prohibit them from using the property for any lawful purpose. If you can't observe what people are doing in a building, then it's none of your business. That said, Japan[1] has an approach to zoning that would be an improvement: They classify land into 12 different zones, 11 of which allow increasingly 'undesirable' buildings to be built. You can build a house in an industrial area or shopping mall if you want, but you can't build a factory in an area zoned for more desirable buildings. Zone 9 is for heavy manufacturing, so it doesn't allow residential or commercial buildings. For something like blocking a shopping mall, you don't actually need the government to ban someone from building one in your neighborhood. Just find 1000 like-minded NIMBYs, set up a corporation with investment money from each NIMBY, get a loan from a bank to cover the rest, build or buy a new town, and simply vote as a shareholder against Walmart's proposal to buy out your land. My view is that you have no right to stop Walmart from doing what it wants on its land, and it has no right to do what it wants on your land. [1] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

jessaustin 10y ago

If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and wherever they deem there is demand. It's hilarious that some replies to this proposition complain about the Mexicans moving in and using local services like schools and sewer treatment, while others complain about the Chinese buying and not using local services! I'm hoping that these are not written by the same "well-meaning liberals", but it does seem likely.

yourapostasy 10y ago

Decades spent in business cured me of similar notions. Externalities, reflexivity, and information+power asymmetry are (among others) unsolved problems in our capitalist systems. Pretty much anything anyone can get away with that doesn't impact the metric being measured, they will. When the metric is price, all sorts of information is lossy-encoded into that metric. I agree with the overall direction of your sentiment, it is just that ample time in the trenches of doing business has disabused me of the effectiveness of capitalism to regulate markets the way we think it does. It regulates the markets all right; the amount of human ingenuity spent trying to game the system at others' expense either now or in the future never ceases to impress me.

rsync 10y ago

"Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bathrooms. Outlaw Zoning entirely." It's called Houston. You should go there and experience it. My personal favorite was the convenience store-cum-liquor mart being run out of a residential front porch. I'm not judging. I am merely pointing out that what you describe has been done in the United States and that you should go there and check it out.

saryant 10y ago
Houston's a fascinating city. I lived there for a few years between leaving the Bay Area and winding up in Colorado. It's a vibrant and energetic place with a never-ending influx of new immigrant cultures from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. Very, very few American cities have embraced pluralism to quite the same extent (and no, I don't include SF on that list).
shiftpgdn 10y ago
You are misinformed. The city of Houston has very harsh setback and parking requirements that encourage an unending suburban style sprawl. Off the cuff it's 7 parking spots per 1000 sq ft of business and buildings in the non central business district area (about a 30x30 square block space) must be 10-20ft from the city easement.

seattle_spring 10y ago

So basically make life cramped and awful for everyone instead of just some?