3 ms·

This is attacking a straw man; the elimination of single-family zoning does not imply replacing that zoning with some other equally onerous requirement. Allowin

• pdonis 6y ago
  > the elimination of single-family zoning does not imply replacing that zoning with some other equally onerous requirement Sure, it does: it explicitly says (not implies) that nobody who wants to live in a single-zoned community is allowed to any more, anywhere. That's an onerous requirement for anyone who does want to live in such a community. > the idea that local interests should have the power to block community changes is directly responsible for many prescient issues I think you mean "present" issues. The problem I see is the idea that local interests should have no power to block the grandiose plans of politicians and bureaucrats who won't have to live with the results. At least in the case described in the article you linked to, the city manager, as far as I can tell, was also a resident, so he had skin in the game. I note, btw, that the project mentioned in the article was allowed by zoning rules.