8 ms·

Same with home renovation / remodeling / addition / construction permits. If your design meets code and zoning, it should automatically get approved. None of th

by ohazi 8y ago

Same with home renovation / remodeling / addition / construction permits. If your design meets code and zoning, it should automatically get approved. None of this nimby-neighbor-going-to-the-planning-meeting-and-getting-your-project-cancelled-because-your-chimney-will-cast-a-shadow-on-their-backyard bullshit.

threeseed 8y ago
So you are saying you wouldn't complain if a 50 storey apartment complex was built right next to you and bathed your entire house in darkness 24/7. Sure thing. This free for all world sounds downright scary.
- ohazi 8y ago
  That. Meets. Zoning. Seriously, wtf.
  - gnicholas 8y ago
    One issue is that zoning rules don't always cover every potential problem. For example, there's been a huge controversy in Redwood City (and neighboring Atherton) regarding a coffee shop that is going in, which will employ lingerie-clad baristas (and apparently have mirrors on the ground, to make things even skeezier). [1] This coffee shop apparently meets all current zoning rules, though the employees may need to be somewhat less scantily-clad than the ones working at other locations. Regardless, this shows one way in which zoning rules don't always predict developments that neighbors might reasonably want to avoid. 1: https://abc7news.com/business/lingerie-bikini-clad-baristas-stir-up-controversy-at-proposed-coffee-shop-near-redwood-city/3852549/ https://abc7news.com/business/lingerie-bikini-clad-baristas-... EDIT: Thanks for downvoting, but perhaps a response would be more productive?
    - ohazi 8y ago
      So in situations like these, do you: a) Fix the zoning rules b) Make everybody ask the city council and all their neighbors for permission for every little thing, every time (a) is at least trying to make an even playing field for everyone. The rules are for everybody, and everybody has to follow them, regardless of political connections or money or lawyering, etc. At least in theory. With (b), you start by trying to get an exception carved out for yourself, so in practice only those with the most patience, money, lawyers, political connections, etc. will be able to get what they want, and everybody else gets the Kafka treatment.
      - gnicholas 8y ago
        Can zoning rules be changed retroactively? And even if this is allowed, can zoning rules be put in place with the goal of booting out a specific business? I think ex post facto prohibitions only apply to criminal laws, but in general I think we disfavor targeting individual businesses with legislation. For background, I live in a neighborhood where the property sizes are much much smaller than the rest of the zoned area. So we have to get exceptions for many things because the rules were written for properties that are 10x to 50x the size. I wish that rules could be written to cover every possible eventuality, and I personally feel the pain because they cannot (I have to pay for every exception and variance in the approval process). So having seen how rules are blunt instruments, I have some sympathy for folks who are caught up in the process.
    - will4274 8y ago
      I didn't downvote, but my mental reaction isn't positive. You don't think anybody in Redwood City would want to go to a place like that? If you want to ban strip clubs and casinos, then ban strip clubs and casinos, but from your description it sounds like trying to block a Hooters from opening, after they have already agreed to limit themselves out of regard for what some might call Puritan concerns. You're arguing against something using an example that most of your audience doesn't agree is valid.
      - gnicholas 8y ago
        Oh I'm not saying I don't think anyone in RWC would want to go there (though the discussions on NextDoor have been mostly one-sided). I'm just pointing out that there are gaps in zoning laws, since we can't anticipate every possible thing. That's what leads people to want to have zoning rules that err on the side of conservatism, so that they don't end up with something like this. Thanks for explaining your reaction. I should also note that this is somewhat closer to a strip club than a Hooters, since the attire is lingerie, not tight shirts. Basically, they're falling somewhere between two things that were known to exist (strip clubs and Hooters) when the rules were presumably made. In the future, I'm sure towns around here will make rules that are more restrictive, citing this as an example of what happens when you leave more room.
- jimktrains2 8y ago
  > If your design meets code and zoning Emphasis mine.
- jzymbaluk 8y ago
  Why shouldn't land owners be able to build whatever they want on their own property? It's not your backyard, it's your neighbors property
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    Playing devil's advocate here (which is my way of saying "bring on the downvotes"): because what they build can still generate negative externalities that affect their neighbors. So even though a 50-story building might be in compliance with zoning laws, it still blocks neighbor's access to a valuable, albeit non-essential resource (sunlight, cool ocean breeze, etc.) that probably factored into the price the original owner paid for their property. In other words, you are free to build whatever you want on your own property, as long as its effects don't negatively impact the value of mine. (I personally will never block developments, but I think I would have a right to be pissed off as hell if something like that happened, still.)
    - baddox 8y ago
      > In other words, you are free to build whatever you want on your own property, as long as its effects don't negatively impact the value of mine. That is nowhere near a good enough rule. What if I buy commercial retail property in a bustling district, but over a few years the bustling industry shifts half a mile away, leaving my district with less foot traffic and thus negatively impacting the value of my property? Have those developers harmed me in a way that should be illegal? You may be tempted to say “well, no, obviously that’s different.” And indeed, it is obviously different. But the challenge is coming up with a rule that actually works without needing you or someone to decide on a case by case basis what is “obviously” an exception.
    - upzone 8y ago
      So first of all, you don’t have a right not to live in a shadow. Millions of people in cities all over the world deal with it every day. It’s not that bad (tbh it probably helps AC bills too). You have certain rights when you buy property, but “a view” isn’t one of them. If you want scenery, move to the country. It’s gorgeous! Second, it’s frustrating that people only think of themselves. “What about my view?” What about the hundreds or thousands of people who can’t live near their jobs or their kids’ schools because of your precious view? What about the people who will be forced to drive in and get stuck in traffic, people who probably can’t bike because they’re forced to live in another town only reachable by a long highway trip? What about the people who are forced to pay higher and higher rents because everyone blocks development everywhere in the city? Screw your view, honestly.
- gk1 8y ago
  "Now that I live here, nobody else can."
  - adventured 8y ago
    Exactly that. I was reading today that ~66% of Seattle's residential housing is single-family homes. Boston by comparison is 14%. It's absurd. And then so many people in Seattle want to complain about plunging affordability. "Seattle homeowners have vigorously fought changes to zoning laws that would increase density on the grounds that it would alter the character of neighborhoods filled with picturesque (if small) craftsman-style bungalows." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-30/how-big-tech-swallowed-seattle?srnd=businessweek-v2 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-30/how-big-t...
- halbritt 8y ago
  Building permits have constraints on the height of various structures in a given zone.
- adamson 8y ago
  That's kind of the point of zoning. If you didn't know what people are allowed to build when you bought your condo, I don't know what to tell you.
- burke 8y ago
  If I were foolish enough to buy property next to a lot zoned for a 50-storey apartment building, then, yes.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    People want to use upzoning to change permissable uses after people have bought. That’s the problem. So you’re either arguing for zoning to remain static to maintain the property rights of surrounding owners, or someone’s getting screwed when zoning changes. The equitable solution would be to compensate surrounding owners for their property losing value or them losing enjoyment when zoning changes (similar to eminent domain), but if that makes zoning changes prohibitively expensive (or owners turn down the offer entirely), we’re back to square one. Someone is losing something. I would rather try to cure cancer than fix land use and housing in California.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - upzone 8y ago
      > The equitable solution would be to compensate surrounding owners for their property losing value or them losing enjoyment when zoning changes... So we should use public money to compensate private property owners for making a bad gamble, at the expense of people who need a place to live. I’m sorry, but why is owning property a guarantee of a return on your investment? Should we compensate people who hold stock in coal companies when we regulate the coal industry too?
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        It’s not a gamble, it’s ownership. It’s not a guaranteed return, it’s compensation for loss of value by an injuring party. Them the breaks of real estate law and it’s English origins, and while I won’t dissuade you from action, know that it will take decades before you see meaningful change. Plan accordingly.
        8y ago
upzone 8y ago
That’s called by-right and lots of cities (maybe all? Not sure if it’s a local/state/federal thing) have that. That doesn’t stop NIMBYism (all you have to do is downzone), but for areas that are reasonably densely zoned, you don’t need any variances for projects that conform to zoning ordinances. The real issue with NIMBYs is how restrictive zoning is. Sure, you can build anything you want if it conforms, but good luck getting it to conform. For example, single-family home neighborhoods are pretty much stuck that way. Want a nice, compact apartment building? Or maybe even a fourplex? Good luck. In my reasonably-sized college town, upzoning happens once PER DECADE. This is the affordable housing crisis at its core, and it’s remarkably procedural and boring. People are unable to afford homes and apartments because of simple tedium that takes place in beige board rooms at 11:00 PM on a Monday (i.e. local politics).
- maccam94 8y ago
  > The real issue with NIMBYs is how restrictive zoning is Yeah, zoning in the US tends to be single use, which prevents most buildings from being built in most places. I recently read a fantastic blog post on how zoning works in Japan, where uses are instead ranked by how much of a "nuisance" they are, and zones have a maximum nuisance level. Anything at or below that level can be constructed in that zone. http://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-japanese-zoning http://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-japanese-zonin...
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    I guess it makes me a dirty NIMBY but I live on a very suburban street with a row of modest single family homes, and I'd rather my neighbor not start a tire recycling business in his backyard, or replace it with a 3 story apartment building. That said, I have no problem with people who want urban living in already-urban areas, and it's a shame when NIMBYs try to stop that kind of development.
- eitally 8y ago
  As a local example that doesn't even apply to multi-family/multi-unit houses, consider the absolutely insane zoning rule in San Mateo county that requires every SFM to have at least 2 covered parking spaces. Seriously, wtf.

by ohazi 8y ago

threeseed 8y ago

So you are saying you wouldn't complain if a 50 storey apartment complex was built right next to you and bathed your entire house in darkness 24/7. Sure thing. This free for all world sounds downright scary.

ohazi 8y ago
That. Meets. Zoning. Seriously, wtf.
- gnicholas 8y ago
  One issue is that zoning rules don't always cover every potential problem. For example, there's been a huge controversy in Redwood City (and neighboring Atherton) regarding a coffee shop that is going in, which will employ lingerie-clad baristas (and apparently have mirrors on the ground, to make things even skeezier). [1] This coffee shop apparently meets all current zoning rules, though the employees may need to be somewhat less scantily-clad than the ones working at other locations. Regardless, this shows one way in which zoning rules don't always predict developments that neighbors might reasonably want to avoid. 1: https://abc7news.com/business/lingerie-bikini-clad-baristas-stir-up-controversy-at-proposed-coffee-shop-near-redwood-city/3852549/ https://abc7news.com/business/lingerie-bikini-clad-baristas-... EDIT: Thanks for downvoting, but perhaps a response would be more productive?
  - ohazi 8y ago
    So in situations like these, do you: a) Fix the zoning rules b) Make everybody ask the city council and all their neighbors for permission for every little thing, every time (a) is at least trying to make an even playing field for everyone. The rules are for everybody, and everybody has to follow them, regardless of political connections or money or lawyering, etc. At least in theory. With (b), you start by trying to get an exception carved out for yourself, so in practice only those with the most patience, money, lawyers, political connections, etc. will be able to get what they want, and everybody else gets the Kafka treatment.
    - gnicholas 8y ago
      Can zoning rules be changed retroactively? And even if this is allowed, can zoning rules be put in place with the goal of booting out a specific business? I think ex post facto prohibitions only apply to criminal laws, but in general I think we disfavor targeting individual businesses with legislation. For background, I live in a neighborhood where the property sizes are much much smaller than the rest of the zoned area. So we have to get exceptions for many things because the rules were written for properties that are 10x to 50x the size. I wish that rules could be written to cover every possible eventuality, and I personally feel the pain because they cannot (I have to pay for every exception and variance in the approval process). So having seen how rules are blunt instruments, I have some sympathy for folks who are caught up in the process.
  - will4274 8y ago
    I didn't downvote, but my mental reaction isn't positive. You don't think anybody in Redwood City would want to go to a place like that? If you want to ban strip clubs and casinos, then ban strip clubs and casinos, but from your description it sounds like trying to block a Hooters from opening, after they have already agreed to limit themselves out of regard for what some might call Puritan concerns. You're arguing against something using an example that most of your audience doesn't agree is valid.
    - gnicholas 8y ago
      Oh I'm not saying I don't think anyone in RWC would want to go there (though the discussions on NextDoor have been mostly one-sided). I'm just pointing out that there are gaps in zoning laws, since we can't anticipate every possible thing. That's what leads people to want to have zoning rules that err on the side of conservatism, so that they don't end up with something like this. Thanks for explaining your reaction. I should also note that this is somewhat closer to a strip club than a Hooters, since the attire is lingerie, not tight shirts. Basically, they're falling somewhere between two things that were known to exist (strip clubs and Hooters) when the rules were presumably made. In the future, I'm sure towns around here will make rules that are more restrictive, citing this as an example of what happens when you leave more room.
jimktrains2 8y ago
> If your design meets code and zoning Emphasis mine.
jzymbaluk 8y ago
Why shouldn't land owners be able to build whatever they want on their own property? It's not your backyard, it's your neighbors property
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  Playing devil's advocate here (which is my way of saying "bring on the downvotes"): because what they build can still generate negative externalities that affect their neighbors. So even though a 50-story building might be in compliance with zoning laws, it still blocks neighbor's access to a valuable, albeit non-essential resource (sunlight, cool ocean breeze, etc.) that probably factored into the price the original owner paid for their property. In other words, you are free to build whatever you want on your own property, as long as its effects don't negatively impact the value of mine. (I personally will never block developments, but I think I would have a right to be pissed off as hell if something like that happened, still.)
  - baddox 8y ago
    > In other words, you are free to build whatever you want on your own property, as long as its effects don't negatively impact the value of mine. That is nowhere near a good enough rule. What if I buy commercial retail property in a bustling district, but over a few years the bustling industry shifts half a mile away, leaving my district with less foot traffic and thus negatively impacting the value of my property? Have those developers harmed me in a way that should be illegal? You may be tempted to say “well, no, obviously that’s different.” And indeed, it is obviously different. But the challenge is coming up with a rule that actually works without needing you or someone to decide on a case by case basis what is “obviously” an exception.
  - upzone 8y ago
    So first of all, you don’t have a right not to live in a shadow. Millions of people in cities all over the world deal with it every day. It’s not that bad (tbh it probably helps AC bills too). You have certain rights when you buy property, but “a view” isn’t one of them. If you want scenery, move to the country. It’s gorgeous! Second, it’s frustrating that people only think of themselves. “What about my view?” What about the hundreds or thousands of people who can’t live near their jobs or their kids’ schools because of your precious view? What about the people who will be forced to drive in and get stuck in traffic, people who probably can’t bike because they’re forced to live in another town only reachable by a long highway trip? What about the people who are forced to pay higher and higher rents because everyone blocks development everywhere in the city? Screw your view, honestly.
gk1 8y ago
"Now that I live here, nobody else can."
- adventured 8y ago
  Exactly that. I was reading today that ~66% of Seattle's residential housing is single-family homes. Boston by comparison is 14%. It's absurd. And then so many people in Seattle want to complain about plunging affordability. "Seattle homeowners have vigorously fought changes to zoning laws that would increase density on the grounds that it would alter the character of neighborhoods filled with picturesque (if small) craftsman-style bungalows." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-30/how-big-tech-swallowed-seattle?srnd=businessweek-v2 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-30/how-big-t...
halbritt 8y ago
Building permits have constraints on the height of various structures in a given zone.
adamson 8y ago
That's kind of the point of zoning. If you didn't know what people are allowed to build when you bought your condo, I don't know what to tell you.
burke 8y ago
If I were foolish enough to buy property next to a lot zoned for a 50-storey apartment building, then, yes.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  People want to use upzoning to change permissable uses after people have bought. That’s the problem. So you’re either arguing for zoning to remain static to maintain the property rights of surrounding owners, or someone’s getting screwed when zoning changes. The equitable solution would be to compensate surrounding owners for their property losing value or them losing enjoyment when zoning changes (similar to eminent domain), but if that makes zoning changes prohibitively expensive (or owners turn down the offer entirely), we’re back to square one. Someone is losing something. I would rather try to cure cancer than fix land use and housing in California.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - upzone 8y ago
    > The equitable solution would be to compensate surrounding owners for their property losing value or them losing enjoyment when zoning changes... So we should use public money to compensate private property owners for making a bad gamble, at the expense of people who need a place to live. I’m sorry, but why is owning property a guarantee of a return on your investment? Should we compensate people who hold stock in coal companies when we regulate the coal industry too?
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      It’s not a gamble, it’s ownership. It’s not a guaranteed return, it’s compensation for loss of value by an injuring party. Them the breaks of real estate law and it’s English origins, and while I won’t dissuade you from action, know that it will take decades before you see meaningful change. Plan accordingly.
      - 8y ago

upzone 8y ago

That’s called by-right and lots of cities (maybe all? Not sure if it’s a local/state/federal thing) have that. That doesn’t stop NIMBYism (all you have to do is downzone), but for areas that are reasonably densely zoned, you don’t need any variances for projects that conform to zoning ordinances. The real issue with NIMBYs is how restrictive zoning is. Sure, you can build anything you want if it conforms, but good luck getting it to conform. For example, single-family home neighborhoods are pretty much stuck that way. Want a nice, compact apartment building? Or maybe even a fourplex? Good luck. In my reasonably-sized college town, upzoning happens once PER DECADE. This is the affordable housing crisis at its core, and it’s remarkably procedural and boring. People are unable to afford homes and apartments because of simple tedium that takes place in beige board rooms at 11:00 PM on a Monday (i.e. local politics).

maccam94 8y ago
> The real issue with NIMBYs is how restrictive zoning is Yeah, zoning in the US tends to be single use, which prevents most buildings from being built in most places. I recently read a fantastic blog post on how zoning works in Japan, where uses are instead ranked by how much of a "nuisance" they are, and zones have a maximum nuisance level. Anything at or below that level can be constructed in that zone. http://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-japanese-zoning http://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-japanese-zonin...
- ryandrake 8y ago
  I guess it makes me a dirty NIMBY but I live on a very suburban street with a row of modest single family homes, and I'd rather my neighbor not start a tire recycling business in his backyard, or replace it with a 3 story apartment building. That said, I have no problem with people who want urban living in already-urban areas, and it's a shame when NIMBYs try to stop that kind of development.
eitally 8y ago
As a local example that doesn't even apply to multi-family/multi-unit houses, consider the absolutely insane zoning rule in San Mateo county that requires every SFM to have at least 2 covered parking spaces. Seriously, wtf.