6 ms·

Federal zoning would be really difficult to get done constitutionally, but state level zoning wouldn’t be as hard and would have most of the same benefits, ie.

Federal zoning would be really difficult to get done constitutionally, but state level zoning wouldn’t be as hard and would have most of the same benefits, ie. reducing the power the nimbys. However there’s no reason to think that would fix it all, transportation planning, design, and funding is almost entirely a state and federal affair, and the nimbys still torpedo all sorts of things that would be great for the region at the expense of a particular neighborhood or block. To some extent though, that’s a feature of democracy, not a bug. There are a bunch of reasons we’re in the mess we’re in, and federal programs and subsidies contribute a lot. The threat to take away federal funding for places that don’t accept housing growth may be more effective than a brute force approach in the end, who knows.

ende 8y ago
Right. There’s no need to take this “all the way to the top” (ie Federal). States can easily supplant the zoning powers of their local governments.
- xxpor 8y ago
  >States can easily supplant the zoning powers of their local governments. Depends on how home rule is set up in that state's constitution.
  - CamTin 8y ago
    Most state constitutions are relatively simple to amend. Certainly much easier than the U.S. Constitution.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  And they do; see the Housing Accountability Act in California, for example.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  Won't happen. The Nimbys have all of the money and can influence the votes in extraordinary ways. Look at Seattle, they won't budge and we have an enormous amount of single family housing. Our mayor is also nearly entirely useless as well, and seemingly only cares about sports teams. The amount of propaganda that would be pushed out to crush any changes to zoning would be on historic levels.
  - pcwalton 8y ago
    AB 2923, which overrides local zoning in order to allow BART to develop on its parking lots, recently passed both houses in California, despite NIMBY objections. And the Housing Accountability Act, which NIMBYs loathe, has long been law (and was even strengthened relatively recently). Renters are a growing political force.
    - mixmastamyk 8y ago
      > Renters are a growing political force. Renters (often under rent control) are NIMBYs as well, don't understand or are convinced that supply and demand don't apply to housing.
      - pcwalton 8y ago
        > Renters (often under rent control) are often NIMBYs as well This is a very SF-specific view of the world. :) Rent control is specific to just a handful of locations and is often subject to statewide restrictions (e.g. Costa-Hawkins). In general, renters are less inclined toward NIMBYism. This is especially true for the younger ones, who don't benefit as much from RC even in the locations where it exists. And even rent controlled tenants don't like the fact that they can't move.
        mixmastamyk 8y ago
        I'm in Los Angeles, where it is a factor.
        chaostheory 8y ago
        It applies beyond just California. It's in NY as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more locations.
      - burlesona 8y ago
        Rent control is almost exclusive to California and New York. Ref: http://www.landlord.com/rent_control_laws_by_state.htm http://www.landlord.com/rent_control_laws_by_state.htm
dionidium 8y ago
> Federal zoning would be really difficult to get done constitutionally Would it? I feel like this has Commerce Clause uber alles written all over it.
- zepto 8y ago
  How is zoning about interstate commerce?
  - dionidium 8y ago
    "How is <x> about interstate commerce?" is a question that's been asked by reasonable people for many values of x that've been before the Supreme Court. In other words, don't ask me. Ask SCOTUS. They've used the Commerce Clause to justify regulations on activities that were far less obviously about interstate commerce than zoning is, most famously in Wickard_v._Filburn, which restricts a farmers right to grow wheat on his own property for his own consumption, which, according to the court, is indeed an example of interstate commerce. My statement, in other words, has nothing to do with my own interpretation of those rulings. It's merely an acknowledgement of them. It's not difficult to think of ways in which local zoning restrictions affect national commerce. And that's been good enough for the Court in the past, it seems.
briffle 8y ago
The threat to take away federal funding for places that don’t accept housing growth may be more effective than a brute force approach in the end, who knows. I believe this is similar to the approach the feds used to move the drinking age to 21 [1], and the old nationwide 55 mph speed limit [2]. They didn't force states to create laws, just said "Federal highway funding will be drastically reduced to states that do not meet X" and magically, this was done. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_... 2. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-times-the-government-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti...
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Both of those are regarded as examples of the federal government acting outside its authority by a lot of people.
TomMckenny 8y ago
>To some extent though, that’s a feature of democracy, not a bug Because of strategic (cynical?) choices over how voter registration is implement, tenants have far less power at the polls.
- burlesona 8y ago
  Yeah I know, it’s far from perfect. This is the fundamental problem with democracy, you get power blocs that can turn out 51% of a vote and then legislate things that aren’t good for everyone else. But my point is that, suppose you are a low income neighborhood and the state naturally wants to blow up your houses to put in a freeway — because they know they can’t get it put through the rich neighborhoods. Shouldn’t you still have the right to fight that? Ex: https://www.strongtowns.org/shreveport/ https://www.strongtowns.org/shreveport/
baybal2 8y ago
There is a hack to it: abolish zoning altogether. Replace it with sanitary codes

ende 8y ago

Right. There’s no need to take this “all the way to the top” (ie Federal). States can easily supplant the zoning powers of their local governments.

xxpor 8y ago
>States can easily supplant the zoning powers of their local governments. Depends on how home rule is set up in that state's constitution.
- CamTin 8y ago
  Most state constitutions are relatively simple to amend. Certainly much easier than the U.S. Constitution.
pcwalton 8y ago
And they do; see the Housing Accountability Act in California, for example.
prolikewh0a 8y ago
Won't happen. The Nimbys have all of the money and can influence the votes in extraordinary ways. Look at Seattle, they won't budge and we have an enormous amount of single family housing. Our mayor is also nearly entirely useless as well, and seemingly only cares about sports teams. The amount of propaganda that would be pushed out to crush any changes to zoning would be on historic levels.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  AB 2923, which overrides local zoning in order to allow BART to develop on its parking lots, recently passed both houses in California, despite NIMBY objections. And the Housing Accountability Act, which NIMBYs loathe, has long been law (and was even strengthened relatively recently). Renters are a growing political force.
  - mixmastamyk 8y ago
    > Renters are a growing political force. Renters (often under rent control) are NIMBYs as well, don't understand or are convinced that supply and demand don't apply to housing.
    - pcwalton 8y ago
      > Renters (often under rent control) are often NIMBYs as well This is a very SF-specific view of the world. :) Rent control is specific to just a handful of locations and is often subject to statewide restrictions (e.g. Costa-Hawkins). In general, renters are less inclined toward NIMBYism. This is especially true for the younger ones, who don't benefit as much from RC even in the locations where it exists. And even rent controlled tenants don't like the fact that they can't move.
      - mixmastamyk 8y ago
        I'm in Los Angeles, where it is a factor.
      - chaostheory 8y ago
        It applies beyond just California. It's in NY as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more locations.
    - burlesona 8y ago
      Rent control is almost exclusive to California and New York. Ref: http://www.landlord.com/rent_control_laws_by_state.htm http://www.landlord.com/rent_control_laws_by_state.htm

dionidium 8y ago

> Federal zoning would be really difficult to get done constitutionally Would it? I feel like this has Commerce Clause uber alles written all over it.

zepto 8y ago
How is zoning about interstate commerce?
- dionidium 8y ago
  "How is <x> about interstate commerce?" is a question that's been asked by reasonable people for many values of x that've been before the Supreme Court. In other words, don't ask me. Ask SCOTUS. They've used the Commerce Clause to justify regulations on activities that were far less obviously about interstate commerce than zoning is, most famously in Wickard_v._Filburn, which restricts a farmers right to grow wheat on his own property for his own consumption, which, according to the court, is indeed an example of interstate commerce. My statement, in other words, has nothing to do with my own interpretation of those rulings. It's merely an acknowledgement of them. It's not difficult to think of ways in which local zoning restrictions affect national commerce. And that's been good enough for the Court in the past, it seems.

briffle 8y ago

The threat to take away federal funding for places that don’t accept housing growth may be more effective than a brute force approach in the end, who knows. I believe this is similar to the approach the feds used to move the drinking age to 21 [1], and the old nationwide 55 mph speed limit [2]. They didn't force states to create laws, just said "Federal highway funding will be drastically reduced to states that do not meet X" and magically, this was done. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_... 2. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-times-the-government-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti...

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Both of those are regarded as examples of the federal government acting outside its authority by a lot of people.

TomMckenny 8y ago

>To some extent though, that’s a feature of democracy, not a bug Because of strategic (cynical?) choices over how voter registration is implement, tenants have far less power at the polls.

burlesona 8y ago
Yeah I know, it’s far from perfect. This is the fundamental problem with democracy, you get power blocs that can turn out 51% of a vote and then legislate things that aren’t good for everyone else. But my point is that, suppose you are a low income neighborhood and the state naturally wants to blow up your houses to put in a freeway — because they know they can’t get it put through the rich neighborhoods. Shouldn’t you still have the right to fight that? Ex: https://www.strongtowns.org/shreveport/ https://www.strongtowns.org/shreveport/

baybal2 8y ago

There is a hack to it: abolish zoning altogether. Replace it with sanitary codes