4 ms·

Just because the original intent may have bad doesn't mean that single family zoning in and of itself is bad. There are lots of municipalities with single famil

Just because the original intent may have bad doesn't mean that single family zoning in and of itself is bad. There are lots of municipalities with single family zoning. Mine does. Mine also doesn't allow any commercial property. And lots must be one acre or more. The residents want it this way. What's wrong with that?

davidw 6y ago
Government enforced 1 acre lots is a good proxy for "keep the poor people out". Also contributes massively to sprawl and thus carbon emissions because you can't have a more traditional sort of neighborhood where people might walk to the park and corner store. Nothing against people owning a 1 acre lot if they want - that's fine! Imposing it on everyone is economic segregation.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>Nothing against people owning a 1 acre lot if they want Sounds like you do, you more or less accused anyone that desires a 1 acre plot of classism or wanting to "keep the poor people out", and of wanting to destroy the environment. In reality most people that want that simply desire privacy, I for example desire that because i do not want to "walk to the corner store" or have a park at all in my neighborhood. I do not want to have "neighborhood" events, or be able to talk to my neighbor from my porch. I want privacy, I want to be able to enjoy my hobbies which are solitary pursuits not group activities.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Lammy 6y ago
  > Imposing it on everyone is economic segregation. I agree but only in the sense that it should include 39 more acres. And a mule.
- zug_zug 6y ago
  >>> Government enforced 1 acre lots is a good proxy for "keep the poor people out". Uhhh not in the very least. Many of us want to live in areas that have 3-acre minimum lots because of a little thing called nature. Those who want to live crammed into micro-apartments with 1 tree for every 30 people can, but those of us who want a whole town that is more grass that pavement should NOT be accused of classism or racism. If you really want to help poor people, figure out a system that doesn't box them into ever-decreasing concrete apartments further and further from clean air.
  - davidw 6y ago
    Cities are actually 'greener' if you look at things on a global scale, rather than just having few trees outside that a few species (deer, say) have somewhat adapted to living in the urban/wildland interface. If everyone lived on 3 acres, you know how much truly wild land would be paved over? Now, I strongly agree that people ought to have the right to purchase and live on a large lot if they want. Great, you earned it, have fun! Requiring that? That's using the government to perpetuate a sprawly, carbon-intensive lifestyle that very much does exclude those who are not wealthy enough to purchase that much land. That's part of the point in many places with that kind of regulation.
    - zug_zug 6y ago
      >> "That's using the government..." The majority of residents of an area using the government to control that area is the pinnacle of democracy. >> If everyone lived on 3 acres, you know how much truly wild land would be paved over? Actually, no there's plenty of land in America. Nothing would be paved, it would just be moved to yards (hint yards aren't paved). And if the population doesn't grow, then there's no reason America can't live like that forever. When excluding illegal immigration, the US population is actually shrinking. There's no need to artificially box ourselves in.
    - adolph 6y ago
      7.7b people. https://www.census.gov/popclock/world https://www.census.gov/popclock/world 15.77b acres of habitable land. http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/land.html http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/land.html 15.77 / 7.7 = 2.04 Every human could have about 2 acres. At this level of distribution humans would essentially live in wilderness and integrate with nature. Oftentimes humans live in family groups so the actual point distribution would be uneven. Unfortunately arable land needed to feed the humans varies by locale but tops at about .6 hectacres [0] or 1.48 acres[1]. This means that effective wilderness could be slightly less than .5 acres per human after some nominal usage for housing and utility right of ways. 0. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/arable-land-use-per-person https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/arable-land-use-per-perso... 1. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=.6+hectares+to+acres&atb=v83-1__&ia=answer https://duckduckgo.com/?q=.6+hectares+to+acres&atb=v83-1__&i...
- intrasight 6y ago
  My town is fully built out, so it's not being imposed upon anyone except perhaps developers. Nobody can purchase a house and tear it down and build four in it's place. The lot is only zoned for one house.
  - davidw 6y ago
    It's being imposed on people who own land, and on potential residents who might like to live there in a more affordable option.
    - intrasight 6y ago
      Some places are just not affordable. That's been true for literally thousands of years.
neilparikh 6y ago
Central planning is not something we should be encouraging, except for cases where the market fails. It's not clear to me there's a market failure that's being corrected with single family zoning. Central planning leads to a situation where market signals are ignored, and entrenches the status quo, rather than allowing cities (and economies in general) to change as needed. It seems highly unlikely that we've stumbled upon the "perfect" land use pattern. Why make it impossible to change from it then?
- intrasight 6y ago
  So you're agreeing, right? Have my town be free of "central planning" and set it's own course in terms of zoning.
  - neilparikh 6y ago
    What? How did you get that from my comment? I'm referring to zoning as the central planning. It's central planning at a local scale, but still central planning. Instead of letting each town set its own course, why not just let each property owner set their own course (within reasonable limits for market failures, like safety)? My entire point is that restrictive zoning is the bureaucrats in the city governments deciding what the best use is for each plot of land, rather than letting the market decide based on demand. Also, if we look at the Berkley case (which is what the OP is about!), there was no external force, the town made the change on its own.

davidw 6y ago

Government enforced 1 acre lots is a good proxy for "keep the poor people out". Also contributes massively to sprawl and thus carbon emissions because you can't have a more traditional sort of neighborhood where people might walk to the park and corner store. Nothing against people owning a 1 acre lot if they want - that's fine! Imposing it on everyone is economic segregation.

syshum 6y ago
>>Nothing against people owning a 1 acre lot if they want Sounds like you do, you more or less accused anyone that desires a 1 acre plot of classism or wanting to "keep the poor people out", and of wanting to destroy the environment. In reality most people that want that simply desire privacy, I for example desire that because i do not want to "walk to the corner store" or have a park at all in my neighborhood. I do not want to have "neighborhood" events, or be able to talk to my neighbor from my porch. I want privacy, I want to be able to enjoy my hobbies which are solitary pursuits not group activities.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Lammy 6y ago
> Imposing it on everyone is economic segregation. I agree but only in the sense that it should include 39 more acres. And a mule.
zug_zug 6y ago
>>> Government enforced 1 acre lots is a good proxy for "keep the poor people out". Uhhh not in the very least. Many of us want to live in areas that have 3-acre minimum lots because of a little thing called nature. Those who want to live crammed into micro-apartments with 1 tree for every 30 people can, but those of us who want a whole town that is more grass that pavement should NOT be accused of classism or racism. If you really want to help poor people, figure out a system that doesn't box them into ever-decreasing concrete apartments further and further from clean air.
- davidw 6y ago
  Cities are actually 'greener' if you look at things on a global scale, rather than just having few trees outside that a few species (deer, say) have somewhat adapted to living in the urban/wildland interface. If everyone lived on 3 acres, you know how much truly wild land would be paved over? Now, I strongly agree that people ought to have the right to purchase and live on a large lot if they want. Great, you earned it, have fun! Requiring that? That's using the government to perpetuate a sprawly, carbon-intensive lifestyle that very much does exclude those who are not wealthy enough to purchase that much land. That's part of the point in many places with that kind of regulation.
  - zug_zug 6y ago
    >> "That's using the government..." The majority of residents of an area using the government to control that area is the pinnacle of democracy. >> If everyone lived on 3 acres, you know how much truly wild land would be paved over? Actually, no there's plenty of land in America. Nothing would be paved, it would just be moved to yards (hint yards aren't paved). And if the population doesn't grow, then there's no reason America can't live like that forever. When excluding illegal immigration, the US population is actually shrinking. There's no need to artificially box ourselves in.
  - adolph 6y ago
    7.7b people. https://www.census.gov/popclock/world https://www.census.gov/popclock/world 15.77b acres of habitable land. http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/land.html http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/land.html 15.77 / 7.7 = 2.04 Every human could have about 2 acres. At this level of distribution humans would essentially live in wilderness and integrate with nature. Oftentimes humans live in family groups so the actual point distribution would be uneven. Unfortunately arable land needed to feed the humans varies by locale but tops at about .6 hectacres [0] or 1.48 acres[1]. This means that effective wilderness could be slightly less than .5 acres per human after some nominal usage for housing and utility right of ways. 0. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/arable-land-use-per-person https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/arable-land-use-per-perso... 1. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=.6+hectares+to+acres&atb=v83-1__&ia=answer https://duckduckgo.com/?q=.6+hectares+to+acres&atb=v83-1__&i...
intrasight 6y ago
My town is fully built out, so it's not being imposed upon anyone except perhaps developers. Nobody can purchase a house and tear it down and build four in it's place. The lot is only zoned for one house.
- davidw 6y ago
  It's being imposed on people who own land, and on potential residents who might like to live there in a more affordable option.
  - intrasight 6y ago
    Some places are just not affordable. That's been true for literally thousands of years.

neilparikh 6y ago

Central planning is not something we should be encouraging, except for cases where the market fails. It's not clear to me there's a market failure that's being corrected with single family zoning. Central planning leads to a situation where market signals are ignored, and entrenches the status quo, rather than allowing cities (and economies in general) to change as needed. It seems highly unlikely that we've stumbled upon the "perfect" land use pattern. Why make it impossible to change from it then?

intrasight 6y ago
So you're agreeing, right? Have my town be free of "central planning" and set it's own course in terms of zoning.
- neilparikh 6y ago
  What? How did you get that from my comment? I'm referring to zoning as the central planning. It's central planning at a local scale, but still central planning. Instead of letting each town set its own course, why not just let each property owner set their own course (within reasonable limits for market failures, like safety)? My entire point is that restrictive zoning is the bureaucrats in the city governments deciding what the best use is for each plot of land, rather than letting the market decide based on demand. Also, if we look at the Berkley case (which is what the OP is about!), there was no external force, the town made the change on its own.