4 ms·
This would be a disaster in the US. This surely victimizes some in Japan also but because of cultural differences you just get more silent suffering. Even if i
by claydavisss 8y ago
This would be a disaster in the US. This surely victimizes some in Japan also but because of cultural differences you just get more silent suffering.
Even if implemented, the new Federal Zoning Board would be obligated to honor pre-existing zoning rules. If not, the party holding power in Washington at the time would get demolished. What politician will risk telling an entire state of voters that their assumptions about their property are going to be unilaterally changed? No one, it would be political suicide.
Accurate or not, any politician proposing this would be accused of trying to socialize housing.
- andrewla 8y agoWhat particular aspect would be a disaster in terms of victimization. I concede the point about a "Federal Zoning Board" but I'm not sure I see the objection if a municipality were to introduce Japanese zoning.
- claydavisss 8y agoCounties/municipalities are already free to zone however they wish, and homeowners and prospective homeowners are free to choose the county/municipality that has zoning laws that are agreeable. Massive revamps of zoning laws would require voter approval or the politicians in question risk political suicide. What voters are going to approve a huge potential downgrade of their largest investment?
- andrewla 8y agoTo be completely clear, then, the only aspect of this plan that you find may cause increased victimization is the fact that it is universally applied, rather than any aspect of the scheme itself?
- claydavisss 8y agoTo be completely clear - I want these decisions to be made at the local level. If a local government choose to implement a plan like the one discussed, so be it, that is a local choice and voters can vote accordingly or move somewhere agreeable.
- TulliusCicero 8y agoThey're already made at a local level, and it's a disaster. I'm not sure they have to be escalated all the way to the feds, but moving them to the metro area level would avoid the rampant NIMBYism you see in cities and neighborhoods in the bay area, for example.
- closeparen 8y agoThen let’s go even more local - to the individual parcel owner. Oh wait. Actions can have consequences for those around you. This applies as much between cities as it does between neighbors.
- emn13 8y agoI'd say it's the opposite: the US system is quite rigid and micromanages how society builds. Limiting the power of government to regulate only broader, more overlapping categories is quite the opposite of socialism in the US sense; it's more like liberalism. But mostly, comparing either to a political philosophy sounds far-fetched. But hey, it's politics, so you may be right somebody will be accused of socialism, however nonsensical that is.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago> US system is quite rigid and micromanages how society builds. This varies a ton from city to city. My general perception is that the cities/towns that tend to be more likely to praise European ways of doing zoning/development are more rigid ones when it comes to zoning so it's much harder to actually do mixed development in those places because of all the boxes checked and signatures required to do it and comply with local regulation. I find this contradiction somewhat comical.
- scarejunba 8y agoThere are no such American cities.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoI said "praise", not "successfully implement"
- claydavisss 8y agoReplacing local rules with Federal rules would probably not be what most voters consider an upgrade in governance. Local homeowners in most cities and towns can get one-on-one facetime with decision makers. In our town I am on a first-name basis with the mayor as are most residents. Who is going to replace this with a Federal Zoning Board?