5 ms·

I'm not sure equating local democracy to tyranny is a sound argument. We all, from the locale to the nation, get to collectively decide the rules under which w

• mikem170 6y ago
  I'm curious the name of the town you referenced that voted zoning out, if there's more I can read. I found a reference that modern zoning was started by the Germans in the late 1800s [0]. This article also mentions the the basic idea of zoning goes back to antiquity, but just the distinctions between stinky and noisy outside the walls, dangerous and filthy between the walls, and every thing else inside. Also mentioned was the industrial revolution, and the change from people working in their houses to factories, and needing to separate those. Also mentioned was modern single use zoning, which has a lot of criticisms. You mentioned a factory 1" from my property. That is an extreme example! The Japanese zoning laws I referenced, and would welcome, do make a distinction between industrial and residential/commercial, and between high density and low density. They key is they are flexible and allow for growth, they are not micromanaged by incumbent homeowners. Low density includes mixed use, and can grow into higher density over time if more people move to an area. I ask you: What about the ability to build an accessory dwelling unit for grandma on the property you own? Or replacing a single family home with a duplex or triplex? Those aren't nuisance or safety issues, are they? Why are those forbidden in most places? What about introducing small shops and mixed residential/retail properties into residential neighborhoods? How is anything supposed to change for the better if we regulate everything to be frozen in time, with incentive, and keep adding more regulations over time? I believe that increasingly restrictive zoning, against things like the above, are causing a lot of damage to our society. Lots of poeple can't afford a place to live. Folks have to live somewhere. They tend to aggregate in cities where the jobs are. Lots of people are stuck with long commutes. So many modern neighborhoods are absolutely soulless, without places to gather, places to walk, and variety. People are neatly divided by income level and race, into bubbles that misunderstand and demonize each other, spending way too much time in cars. Just because 51% of people vote on something doesn't mean it's not a tyranny. That's why they have the phrase "tyranny of the majority". There's principals involved, or there should be. Otherwise it would be ok for the majority to ignore and screw over the minority any time they want. And I think that is happening in this case. It's gone too far. Homeowners have theirs and are artificially restricting the supply of housing. They care more about their property values than they do about other people. I assume there's middle ground to discuss, about things like noise and pets, anticipating growth, allowing variety, what comes after car culture, how to explore alternatives, etc. But justifying the current regulatory regime based on a majority vote, when so many other people are negatively impacted, just makes me sad for what democracy has come to mean in this country. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning
  • toss1 6y ago
    Name of town= Dover, VT Two things you get wrong: * Zoning - it takes a 2/3 vote to change zoning; the laws are FAR more popular than you think. There is a movement in my state (Mass) to reduce that to 50% to take advantage of your bandwagon. * Greed: NO, it's the exact opposite. If I could get a variance, I could put a 2nd apt addition on my house and build a duplex in the front yard, and walk away with $millions for those 4 units (nevermind that I'd just trashed the protected wetlands that make up 2/3 of my yard, and the neighborhood). Every one of my neighbors in the whole town could do the same or better. But no one wants to, because we came for the quiet, the trails, the wildlife. It is the opposite of greed. * There are plenty of neighborhoods with very high population density and low cost housing within 5 miles of this 2ac-zoned town. But "nobody" wants to go there, because, well, the same reason I don't, dense-pack, pavement, noise, traffic, crime, no room to park+++, and plenty of housing IS being built there (a new 200+units 3.5mi away) Simply trashing the low-density areas that literally generations have invested in building is not a solution. I hear you like the Japanese model a lot, but I do not know enough about it to have an informed opinion. I do know that Japan is a very different society than ours, demographically, and culturally. You speak of "individual property rights", but I think that you would find that Japan constrains those much more tightly than in the US. To your specific question about Grandma Apt, Duplex/Triplex/Quad: A Grandma suite is typically allowed in these zoned towns with a variance, and sometimes restricted to bona-fide family members (not AirB&B suites). The Duplex/Triplex/Quad is specifically not allowed, BECAUSE HAS MASSIVE MEASURABLE DELETERIOUS EFFECTS on services burden, nuisance and safety. Every single issue changes: traffic, burden on school districts, water/sewer, road maintenance, crime. Of course, a single instance of a single duplex/triple/quad has a negligable effect, just like a single noisy, polluting factory. But, systemically change the rules so that those are everywhere, and everything changes. Taking one of the most bucolic 25 SqMi, towns with 8.5K people at 350/SqMi, and changing it to quads makes it a lot closer to 40K ppl, 1700/SqMi. Right now, everyone has an individual well and septic system. With that population, the wells and septic would fail and we'd require an entirely new centralized water & sewer system at a cost of $100s of millions. We already have one tiny such development, and it already has caused well failure for itself and the neighboring wells, requiring a expensive mitigation measures, digging temp hookups to adjacent town systems, etc. So, if you want to show up with several hundred million dollars to build out all that infrastructure, support 5X larger schools, 5X larger fire & police, road maintenance & buildout, and so forth, then maybe that makes sense. But don't act like "oh, just change the zoning because none of it matters" is an actual argument, because with that argument, you show that you literally do not know what you are talking about. Ignoring collateral effects does not make them disappear. Similarly, ignoring that it is 67% vote and not 51%, does not make you look knowlegable. And you talk about can't afford it in the city, and long commutes. Well, if that's the problem, you need to focus on higher density taller city buildings, and not on changing zoning in the places that geographically require long commutes. I can get on board with that. I think there is a real case in the cities for taller and higher efficiency apartments, like the tiny house movement, where it is fewer square feet, but just packed with fold-out storage and conveniences. I don't see how allowing such smaller units would change much about the city, BUT I know that I don't know enough about the topic to say (I've liven on Manhattan in a small apt, could have lived OK in a more efficient such unit, but I don't know enough abt the real situation there to want to impose such a rule change on them).