8 ms·

I am coming to understand that the purpose of almost all zoning regulations is to exclude "undesirable" people from the area. Poor people are considered undesi

by dzdt 10y ago

I am coming to understand that the purpose of almost all zoning regulations is to exclude "undesirable" people from the area. Poor people are considered undesirable. So zoning codes are tweaked until the effect is that high incomes are required. You have to have a certain cynicism to understand that there is a huge disconnect between what regulations discuss (health and safety; parking requirements; setbacks; etc.) and what is the impact of the rules. The reason rules are made is they have a desired effect. The effects are often not obvious from the language of the rule, but if the effects turn out contrary to the interest of the rule-makers things will be tweaked. So the language and purported purpose of rules is obfuscation. The rule-makers are paying attention to the effect of the rules. That is their real purpose. The form of the rules is optimised to make them appear beneficial to all, while the function is optimised to benefit the rule-makers.

beguliedfoil 10y ago
Oh hi. I'm one of the NIMBYs in Seattle that likes height restrictions and hates micro housing. Across the street there's a halfway house and two blocks down there's an empty lot that is now being used as a sanctioned tenting site for homeless. I have no problem with either being in my neighborhood. I hope they stay. I hope they expand. >You have to have a certain cynicism You certainly have to be cynical to believe that somehow Seattle is not operating in its own self interest. As faults are found, we try to correct them. Some are very difficult to correct (hello I5, hello American street widths, hello North Seattle sprawl, hello West Seattle suburban wasteland, hello unlivable industrial area) and some are geographic constrains (hello hills and water). Making tiny shitty apartments does not correct any of these deep problems. >The form of the rules is optimised to make them appear beneficial to all, The form of the rules isn't 'optimised' at all. It's an organic living document called "the law." You apparently think the world would be a better place if developers could make whatever size dwelling they want. I think that happened in the 19th century and the result was skid row. I am not interested in trying the experiment again. I am interested in more housing for my community, but honestly that means rezoning SFHs, not getting rid of height restrictions and parking requirements when they're justifiable. And yes, my opinion is entirely qualitative. I like 3-4 story buildings because I like them. They have been a staple of the environment that dragged me out of adolescence and into responsible, productive adulthood. They are the good geometry.
- noelwelsh 10y ago
  There is so much I don't like in this response, but I think the core is that you want people to live in small apartments for ... no good reason other than you don't like them. You can see from the exterior shot of OneOne6 (http://www.karmaresidential.com/oneone6.html http://www.karmaresidential.com/oneone6.html) that it is four stories high---so it doesn't engage the height restriction issue you are so concerned with (and is only tangentially related to the article). It's about five minutes walk from Capitol Hill station, so no need for parking. At least you have the insight to realise your opinion is "entirely qualitative" (i.e. entirely emotional) but apparently not the insight to recognize you should then change your opinion.
  - cushychicken 10y ago
    Just as a counterpoint - it's pretty easy to get emotional about a decision that you, personally, have a quarter million dollars wrapped up in. (Or in Seattle/Cap Hill's case, substantially more than that!) That's what home ownership does to people - it causes them to protect their investments. Is it a net good? I don't know. But I think it's a huge and common misconception to interpret NIMBY-ism as a malicious action rather than a simple case of people acting in their own self interest.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - jschwartzi 10y ago
      The problem is that GP is deciding that the minimum cost to enter Seattle should be at least $1500 a month for everyone, and that they should all live like GP. Then they bring up halfway houses and tent cities, which says to me that they're fine with squalid living conditions. What they apparently want is for anyone in Seattle to either have a high salary or to live in a tent city with the rest of the homeless.
      - cushychicken 10y ago
        > What they apparently want is for anyone in Seattle to either have a high salary or to live in a tent city with the rest of the homeless. That seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. Plus, I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply there's this big, nefarious "they". It seems more realistic (to me, at least) to view NIMBYers as a bunch of individual homeowners concerned about the value of what's likely their single biggest investment. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the post you're referencing the "tent city" thing from was tongue-in-cheek. That's entirely personal speculation, however.
Fifer82 10y ago
In the UK our last chancellor did this to keep the ponzi housing scheme going. There are a lot of estates and bad places dotted around central London. So, first, reduce welfare, and then cap housing benefit on increasing rents, and then introduce a bedroom tax. Once all of the scum has been displaced, the place is flattened, and then new buildings go up. "Affordable Flats" where a bedsit costs you 360k.
- makomk 10y ago
  This is the problem with the notion that micro-housing is somehow going to solve the affordable housing problem. The thing that seems to attract companies to it is that they can charge close to the price of a full-size flat for something much smaller, call it "affordable", and accuse opponents of being NIMBYs and not wanting affordable housing.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    Charge twice the price of what flats were a few years ago, advertise it in China first, and ignore the new owners leaving it empty. That's the worst case that's been seen in a few places.
  - zanny 10y ago
    This all relates to the fundamental problem with housing in most cities, in that the extreme regulation destroys all competition. This actually happens in almost every field nowadays - the proliferation of effectively Nanny state government "protecting" its citizens from making bad decisions by regulating standards into things like residential zoning or even things like crop production or materials processing dramatically reduces the ability for competition to ever enter the market, because the more regulation you burden the industry with the more impossible it is for an upstart to actually comply or even understand it all. That goes hand in hand with how another poster above commented about how regulations are written to look like they are for the common good but are only good for those writing the laws. And when you exist in a system where money buys politicians and the will of the people has no effective influence on politics, you end up using regulation to stop competition. I want to see one city who bucks the profiteering and greed and just dezones everything and just lets people build. Yes, you would need to be more responsible as someone moving there to know if the building is safe or not, but really you have always paid for that through taxes and increased home prices, so paying someone to appraise your potential properties or more likely having general agencies that organically do it would be so much more preferrable to just preventing any innovation in the space at all in the name of NIMBYisms and market capture.
hclivess 10y ago
The only intended desired effect is a full pocket
panglott 10y ago
And unfortunately, as here, "poor people" frequently just means "young people". Working families can't really live in these apodments—they are for people out of college or starting out in their careers who are trying to get buy, build some wealth, when they are low-paid and rent is $1000+/month because NIMBYism has led to a shortage of housing and thus high prices.
brightball 10y ago
Exactly. You also see this across the board in virtually every area of politics and society. My personal favorite example is around the general population's opposition to school choice / voucher programs while based on the status quo the only people who have that choice now are the people with higher incomes.

by dzdt 10y ago

beguliedfoil 10y ago

Oh hi. I'm one of the NIMBYs in Seattle that likes height restrictions and hates micro housing. Across the street there's a halfway house and two blocks down there's an empty lot that is now being used as a sanctioned tenting site for homeless. I have no problem with either being in my neighborhood. I hope they stay. I hope they expand. >You have to have a certain cynicism You certainly have to be cynical to believe that somehow Seattle is not operating in its own self interest. As faults are found, we try to correct them. Some are very difficult to correct (hello I5, hello American street widths, hello North Seattle sprawl, hello West Seattle suburban wasteland, hello unlivable industrial area) and some are geographic constrains (hello hills and water). Making tiny shitty apartments does not correct any of these deep problems. >The form of the rules is optimised to make them appear beneficial to all, The form of the rules isn't 'optimised' at all. It's an organic living document called "the law." You apparently think the world would be a better place if developers could make whatever size dwelling they want. I think that happened in the 19th century and the result was skid row. I am not interested in trying the experiment again. I am interested in more housing for my community, but honestly that means rezoning SFHs, not getting rid of height restrictions and parking requirements when they're justifiable. And yes, my opinion is entirely qualitative. I like 3-4 story buildings because I like them. They have been a staple of the environment that dragged me out of adolescence and into responsible, productive adulthood. They are the good geometry.

noelwelsh 10y ago
There is so much I don't like in this response, but I think the core is that you want people to live in small apartments for ... no good reason other than you don't like them. You can see from the exterior shot of OneOne6 (http://www.karmaresidential.com/oneone6.html http://www.karmaresidential.com/oneone6.html) that it is four stories high---so it doesn't engage the height restriction issue you are so concerned with (and is only tangentially related to the article). It's about five minutes walk from Capitol Hill station, so no need for parking. At least you have the insight to realise your opinion is "entirely qualitative" (i.e. entirely emotional) but apparently not the insight to recognize you should then change your opinion.
- cushychicken 10y ago
  Just as a counterpoint - it's pretty easy to get emotional about a decision that you, personally, have a quarter million dollars wrapped up in. (Or in Seattle/Cap Hill's case, substantially more than that!) That's what home ownership does to people - it causes them to protect their investments. Is it a net good? I don't know. But I think it's a huge and common misconception to interpret NIMBY-ism as a malicious action rather than a simple case of people acting in their own self interest.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - jschwartzi 10y ago
    The problem is that GP is deciding that the minimum cost to enter Seattle should be at least $1500 a month for everyone, and that they should all live like GP. Then they bring up halfway houses and tent cities, which says to me that they're fine with squalid living conditions. What they apparently want is for anyone in Seattle to either have a high salary or to live in a tent city with the rest of the homeless.
    - cushychicken 10y ago
      > What they apparently want is for anyone in Seattle to either have a high salary or to live in a tent city with the rest of the homeless. That seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. Plus, I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply there's this big, nefarious "they". It seems more realistic (to me, at least) to view NIMBYers as a bunch of individual homeowners concerned about the value of what's likely their single biggest investment. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the post you're referencing the "tent city" thing from was tongue-in-cheek. That's entirely personal speculation, however.

Fifer82 10y ago

In the UK our last chancellor did this to keep the ponzi housing scheme going. There are a lot of estates and bad places dotted around central London. So, first, reduce welfare, and then cap housing benefit on increasing rents, and then introduce a bedroom tax. Once all of the scum has been displaced, the place is flattened, and then new buildings go up. "Affordable Flats" where a bedsit costs you 360k.

makomk 10y ago
This is the problem with the notion that micro-housing is somehow going to solve the affordable housing problem. The thing that seems to attract companies to it is that they can charge close to the price of a full-size flat for something much smaller, call it "affordable", and accuse opponents of being NIMBYs and not wanting affordable housing.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Charge twice the price of what flats were a few years ago, advertise it in China first, and ignore the new owners leaving it empty. That's the worst case that's been seen in a few places.
- zanny 10y ago
  This all relates to the fundamental problem with housing in most cities, in that the extreme regulation destroys all competition. This actually happens in almost every field nowadays - the proliferation of effectively Nanny state government "protecting" its citizens from making bad decisions by regulating standards into things like residential zoning or even things like crop production or materials processing dramatically reduces the ability for competition to ever enter the market, because the more regulation you burden the industry with the more impossible it is for an upstart to actually comply or even understand it all. That goes hand in hand with how another poster above commented about how regulations are written to look like they are for the common good but are only good for those writing the laws. And when you exist in a system where money buys politicians and the will of the people has no effective influence on politics, you end up using regulation to stop competition. I want to see one city who bucks the profiteering and greed and just dezones everything and just lets people build. Yes, you would need to be more responsible as someone moving there to know if the building is safe or not, but really you have always paid for that through taxes and increased home prices, so paying someone to appraise your potential properties or more likely having general agencies that organically do it would be so much more preferrable to just preventing any innovation in the space at all in the name of NIMBYisms and market capture.

hclivess 10y ago

The only intended desired effect is a full pocket

panglott 10y ago

And unfortunately, as here, "poor people" frequently just means "young people". Working families can't really live in these apodments—they are for people out of college or starting out in their careers who are trying to get buy, build some wealth, when they are low-paid and rent is $1000+/month because NIMBYism has led to a shortage of housing and thus high prices.

brightball 10y ago

Exactly. You also see this across the board in virtually every area of politics and society. My personal favorite example is around the general population's opposition to school choice / voucher programs while based on the status quo the only people who have that choice now are the people with higher incomes.