6 ms·

Really single-family-only zoning should be banned by federal law. Force cities to build duplexes/triplexes/four-plexes everywhere. We're stuck in this stupid si

Really single-family-only zoning should be banned by federal law. Force cities to build duplexes/triplexes/four-plexes everywhere. We're stuck in this stupid single-family-or-idiotic-"luxury"-condo idiocy because of that.

wil421 7y ago
Speak for you own state or city. My city has no problem with sane development of single family homes, townhomes, condos/apartments and high rise housing.
- davidw 7y ago
  Which city?
  - wil421 7y ago
    Metro Atlanta. I watched 3 high rises go up in the span of a year when I worked downtown, 1 catering to Georgia Tech students and 2 for anyone (with a huge focus on young adults). The in-town area I just moved from started addressing concerns about single family homes by working with developers to build high density apartments and lofts. They passed “workforce” zoning for housing to combat gentrification[1]. [1] https://www.reporternewspapers.net/2018/12/15/brookhaven-pioneers-an-affordable-housing-requirement/ https://www.reporternewspapers.net/2018/12/15/brookhaven-pio...
davidw 7y ago
Ending parking minimums is right up there too.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Really single-family-only zoning should be banned by federal law. There's not even a shadow of Constitutional argument that that's a federal power.
- CountSessine 7y ago
  State law? Most cities in Canada exist as charters passed by their provincial governments. Is the same true in the US?
  - davidw 7y ago
    Oregon just did this with HB 2001, which re-legalizes some "missing middle" housing in a lot of our cities.
- javagram 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    Wickard v. Filburn was a new-deal-era case adjudicated when the court operated under threat of being packed by Roosevelt if it did not comply [0]. A strict constructionist reading of the constitution would suggest that Gonzales v. Raich is judicial activism, and indeed, all the judges signatory to the majority opinion tend to be the "big government" types. Note that O'Connor and Rehnquist, two famous justices who often sided with strict constructionism, dissented. O'Connor wrote that though she did not support California's actions, she respected its right to do so: "Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. " Thomas also dissented, for somewhat similar principles though with different wording. Source for this is your link. We don't implement things like this federally because needs differ. Bozeman, Montana can probably zone and sprawl as needed; it's small and there's lots of land. San Francisco can't. Why would any one feel the need to apply the same rules to both, unless it was an attempt to force a particular ideology on another? If there is sufficient support for something, it ought to pass just as well at the state or local level. [0]: https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packing-supreme-court https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packin...
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
Single-family housing seems perfectly reasonable in non-competitive, rural environments. No need force multi-family housing in those areas.
- davidw 7y ago
  Sure, but let the market figure it out rather than mandate it?
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    The post being replied to calls for mandating it the other way: > Force cities to build duplexes/triplexes/four-plexes everywhere.
    - davidw 7y ago
      Yeah I would disagree with that. We should remove as many barriers to that kind of housing as possible, but no one knows the 'correct' mix of housing options in any given city.
- klipt 7y ago
  We could have zoning that allows for either and let the market decide. I'm sure no developer will build a giant condo tower in the middle of rural nowhere.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    Multi-family housing "in the middle of nowhere" could look appetizing for reducing municipal costs. You need a lot more roads, power/water lines, in single residence communities than in urban areas. Declining tax bases in rural areas will be death by a thousand cuts. It takes serious cash for a municipality to "keep the lights on". This may sound slightly contrary to my prior opinion, but there ought be a middle ground between the free choice of wanting a SFH, but also having some level of community planning that ensures the community remains viable.
HarryHirsch 7y ago
Can we have proper building standards first? Right now, the level of noise insulation in the US is abysmal, consequently no one will move into a multiplex unless they absolutely have to. That's why the perception that multiplexes attract undesirables is actually justified, and no one wants them and their externalities in their neighbourhood of single-family housing.
- abledon 7y ago
  I lived in an apartment in Montreal where the guy below me would invite hookers over, snort coke and get strangled, you could hear him getting chocked and the crack pipe being 'tink tinked' beforehand, then the high heels walking out of his den at 0230 in the morning lol. Noise insulation is very important!
- wtvanhest 7y ago
  Requiring noise insulation would drive the cost up. A better option would be to have optional noise mitigation measurements done in a cheap way so that buildings could certify for a given level of noise transmission between units. You would have each unit certified as either A, B or C. C being nearly no noise insulation, A being very quiet. Let the market decide what they want to pay for.
  - romwell 7y ago
    >Requiring noise insulation would drive the cost up As if construction costs were the primary factor in determining the cost of real estate in places with housing crisis problems (like the Bay Area).
    - zamfi 7y ago
      Construction costs are very high in the Bay Area, and it is one component that holds back the construction of ADUs (in-law units) wchi hostage requires cities to support. Of course, then you’d ask, well why are construction costs so high in the Bay Area? And you might hear something about earthquakes, insulation, whatever. But the real reason is that contractors and construction workers need to live here too, and living here is damn expensive!
Excel_Wizard 7y ago
That's a bit much.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
There's many, many, many parts of the country where single family homes are fine. Just don't let people zone or over-regulate away higher density options and the market does a fine job of adding more dense forms of housing where needed.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  They said "single-family-only", not a ban on single family homes.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    It followed that statement with > Force cities to build duplexes/triplexes/four-plexes everywhere. which makes the intention ambiguous and slanted towards banning single family homes.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    The comment now reads "single-family-only zoning should be banned by federal law" I distinctly recall it calling for a ban on single family housing. Considering that there are many replies calling it an overreaction and replying as thought it called for a ban on single family housing in general I would be willing to bet money it did not originally say what it says now.
happytoexplain 7y ago
This opinion would generate a lot of justifiable anger from families who love their homes and live in areas that aren't under high housing pressure, but I suspect that you didn't mean to say that this should be applied literally everywhere.
- davidw 7y ago
  If there is not high housing pressure, not much will change. Banning single family zoning does not equate to banning single family homes! It's more like: re-legalizing a lot of different housing options.
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    Banning single family zoning would eventually cause single family homes to disappear. Without legal limits, the market will always converge on what’s most profitable to developers, which is currently “stuffing as many units as legal/possible into the space.”
    - disjhshava 7y ago
      This type of construction is only so profitable because it's usually illegal, and therefore a critically undersupplied segment of the market. Developers are therefore eager to do it every chance they get. If it were legal to build this way everywhere, they would only do it in the places it made sense. Developers wouldn't be building 4-story condos in Contra Costa county for people to commute 50 miles into SF and Mountain View if they were alowed to build enough to meet demand in SF and Mountain View. Where people want to build, the power-hungry folks in charge put restrictions in place and demand a troll toll to let a few projects through. And the folks in charge where nobody wants to build see the opportunity and seize it. It's just human nature, and it's the reason local government shouldn't be put in charge of density regulation.
    - davidw 7y ago
      There is plenty of single family housing in Italy, where I lived for many years, and where most other housing types are legal. If someone is happy in their SFH, why would it disappear? If someone has the money, they'll be able to build new ones too. Yeah, maybe central San Francisco won't have many, as people cash out, but that seems pretty reasonable. You can go live in Lakeview Oregon and have a huge house on a huge lot if that's what you want.

wil421 7y ago

Speak for you own state or city. My city has no problem with sane development of single family homes, townhomes, condos/apartments and high rise housing.

davidw 7y ago
Which city?
- wil421 7y ago
  Metro Atlanta. I watched 3 high rises go up in the span of a year when I worked downtown, 1 catering to Georgia Tech students and 2 for anyone (with a huge focus on young adults). The in-town area I just moved from started addressing concerns about single family homes by working with developers to build high density apartments and lofts. They passed “workforce” zoning for housing to combat gentrification[1]. [1] https://www.reporternewspapers.net/2018/12/15/brookhaven-pioneers-an-affordable-housing-requirement/ https://www.reporternewspapers.net/2018/12/15/brookhaven-pio...

davidw 7y ago

Ending parking minimums is right up there too.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Really single-family-only zoning should be banned by federal law. There's not even a shadow of Constitutional argument that that's a federal power.

CountSessine 7y ago
State law? Most cities in Canada exist as charters passed by their provincial governments. Is the same true in the US?
- davidw 7y ago
  Oregon just did this with HB 2001, which re-legalizes some "missing middle" housing in a lot of our cities.
javagram 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- big_chungus 7y ago
  Wickard v. Filburn was a new-deal-era case adjudicated when the court operated under threat of being packed by Roosevelt if it did not comply [0]. A strict constructionist reading of the constitution would suggest that Gonzales v. Raich is judicial activism, and indeed, all the judges signatory to the majority opinion tend to be the "big government" types. Note that O'Connor and Rehnquist, two famous justices who often sided with strict constructionism, dissented. O'Connor wrote that though she did not support California's actions, she respected its right to do so: "Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. " Thomas also dissented, for somewhat similar principles though with different wording. Source for this is your link. We don't implement things like this federally because needs differ. Bozeman, Montana can probably zone and sprawl as needed; it's small and there's lots of land. San Francisco can't. Why would any one feel the need to apply the same rules to both, unless it was an attempt to force a particular ideology on another? If there is sufficient support for something, it ought to pass just as well at the state or local level. [0]: https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packing-supreme-court https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packin...

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

Single-family housing seems perfectly reasonable in non-competitive, rural environments. No need force multi-family housing in those areas.

davidw 7y ago
Sure, but let the market figure it out rather than mandate it?
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  The post being replied to calls for mandating it the other way: > Force cities to build duplexes/triplexes/four-plexes everywhere.
  - davidw 7y ago
    Yeah I would disagree with that. We should remove as many barriers to that kind of housing as possible, but no one knows the 'correct' mix of housing options in any given city.
klipt 7y ago
We could have zoning that allows for either and let the market decide. I'm sure no developer will build a giant condo tower in the middle of rural nowhere.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  Multi-family housing "in the middle of nowhere" could look appetizing for reducing municipal costs. You need a lot more roads, power/water lines, in single residence communities than in urban areas. Declining tax bases in rural areas will be death by a thousand cuts. It takes serious cash for a municipality to "keep the lights on". This may sound slightly contrary to my prior opinion, but there ought be a middle ground between the free choice of wanting a SFH, but also having some level of community planning that ensures the community remains viable.

HarryHirsch 7y ago

Can we have proper building standards first? Right now, the level of noise insulation in the US is abysmal, consequently no one will move into a multiplex unless they absolutely have to. That's why the perception that multiplexes attract undesirables is actually justified, and no one wants them and their externalities in their neighbourhood of single-family housing.

abledon 7y ago
I lived in an apartment in Montreal where the guy below me would invite hookers over, snort coke and get strangled, you could hear him getting chocked and the crack pipe being 'tink tinked' beforehand, then the high heels walking out of his den at 0230 in the morning lol. Noise insulation is very important!
wtvanhest 7y ago
Requiring noise insulation would drive the cost up. A better option would be to have optional noise mitigation measurements done in a cheap way so that buildings could certify for a given level of noise transmission between units. You would have each unit certified as either A, B or C. C being nearly no noise insulation, A being very quiet. Let the market decide what they want to pay for.
- romwell 7y ago
  >Requiring noise insulation would drive the cost up As if construction costs were the primary factor in determining the cost of real estate in places with housing crisis problems (like the Bay Area).
  - zamfi 7y ago
    Construction costs are very high in the Bay Area, and it is one component that holds back the construction of ADUs (in-law units) wchi hostage requires cities to support. Of course, then you’d ask, well why are construction costs so high in the Bay Area? And you might hear something about earthquakes, insulation, whatever. But the real reason is that contractors and construction workers need to live here too, and living here is damn expensive!

Excel_Wizard 7y ago

That's a bit much.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

There's many, many, many parts of the country where single family homes are fine. Just don't let people zone or over-regulate away higher density options and the market does a fine job of adding more dense forms of housing where needed.

maxerickson 7y ago
They said "single-family-only", not a ban on single family homes.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  It followed that statement with > Force cities to build duplexes/triplexes/four-plexes everywhere. which makes the intention ambiguous and slanted towards banning single family homes.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  The comment now reads "single-family-only zoning should be banned by federal law" I distinctly recall it calling for a ban on single family housing. Considering that there are many replies calling it an overreaction and replying as thought it called for a ban on single family housing in general I would be willing to bet money it did not originally say what it says now.

happytoexplain 7y ago

This opinion would generate a lot of justifiable anger from families who love their homes and live in areas that aren't under high housing pressure, but I suspect that you didn't mean to say that this should be applied literally everywhere.

davidw 7y ago
If there is not high housing pressure, not much will change. Banning single family zoning does not equate to banning single family homes! It's more like: re-legalizing a lot of different housing options.
- ryandrake 7y ago
  Banning single family zoning would eventually cause single family homes to disappear. Without legal limits, the market will always converge on what’s most profitable to developers, which is currently “stuffing as many units as legal/possible into the space.”
  - disjhshava 7y ago
    This type of construction is only so profitable because it's usually illegal, and therefore a critically undersupplied segment of the market. Developers are therefore eager to do it every chance they get. If it were legal to build this way everywhere, they would only do it in the places it made sense. Developers wouldn't be building 4-story condos in Contra Costa county for people to commute 50 miles into SF and Mountain View if they were alowed to build enough to meet demand in SF and Mountain View. Where people want to build, the power-hungry folks in charge put restrictions in place and demand a troll toll to let a few projects through. And the folks in charge where nobody wants to build see the opportunity and seize it. It's just human nature, and it's the reason local government shouldn't be put in charge of density regulation.
  - davidw 7y ago
    There is plenty of single family housing in Italy, where I lived for many years, and where most other housing types are legal. If someone is happy in their SFH, why would it disappear? If someone has the money, they'll be able to build new ones too. Yeah, maybe central San Francisco won't have many, as people cash out, but that seems pretty reasonable. You can go live in Lakeview Oregon and have a huge house on a huge lot if that's what you want.