3 ms·

Most of the land in my (Massachusetts) town is zoned for single-family homes. There are several identifiable square-mile or larger areas with nothing but homes

Most of the land in my (Massachusetts) town is zoned for single-family homes. There are several identifiable square-mile or larger areas with nothing but homes plus maybe one school and one church. Maybe a gas station / Dunkin Donuts within fifteen-minute walking distance. That's no way to live. I'd love to change it, with greater zoning diversity and particularly that which allows higher density, but there valid objections to doing it all at once. Roads would need to be upgraded and then maintained, at direct town expense, plus dealing with increased traffic. Ditto for water and sewer lines, minus the traffic issue. Electrical, gas, and communications are better in that they're not at town expense but worse in that more parties have to be involved (and they tend to cheap out even more than the town does). And then there's schools - the town's crown jewels and the main reason anyone lives here. They're excellent but already overcrowded. Work is under way to fix that, but we really can't afford to add even more stress to that system. These are very real issues that I'm sensitive to, even though I also think there are other issues - especially racial and income diversity - that we must address in the longer term. These same issues recur many other places, I'm sure including the Bay Area. It has to be not only allowable but profitable for developers to do the actual building, or else they won't, and then the town needs property-tax revenue from each tranche before they begin the next. It's a very tricky dance, and I do not at all envy the people on zoning/planning boards trying to reconcile all these conflicting needs.

pdonis 5y ago
> I'd love to change it The simplest way to change your own situation is to move. Different towns, cities, rural areas, etc. with different land uses exist so that people with different preferences can all find some place that reasonably matches their preferences. Making them all the same just so they match your personal preferences makes the situation worse, not better.
- notacoward 5y ago
  You're assuming infinite variety exists, or can exist. That's so absurd that it's hard to believe it was meant in good faith. No, I can't just select from a menu. What if I want good schools and other facilities that few towns have, and proximity to the people/places that matter to me, and a town that's not so much single-family-home wasteland everywhere but the center? What if I want other people who aren't millionaires to have access to some of these things? Oops, me moving doesn't solve that. Sometimes you have to build the kind of place you want (or think should exist) and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Every town that already exists has been shaped by the conscious choices of people who live there and vote there and serve in offices there. I have just as much right to push for what I want as any of them did. P.S. Almost forgot to point out the "making them all the same" strawman. Never suggested that, champ.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > You're assuming infinite variety exists, or can exist. I'm assuming no such thing. I'm only assuming that there are places that would match your preferences better than where you currently live (or, if you want to be really precise, enough better to justify the costs of moving). Since people move all the time, for precisely that reason (I've done it myself, several times), that does not seem to me like a very extravagant assumption. It is true that no place will be perfect: no place will satisfy literally all of someone's preferences. (There may be rare people that can find such a place, but they are going to be rare enough that we can ignore them for this discussion.) But I did not claim that you could find a place that would be perfect for you. I only claimed that you could find a place that would be better than where you currently are. > Every town that already exists has been shaped by the conscious choices of people who live there and vote there and serve in offices there. That's true. And if you think enough other people in your town would support your desired changes, you can of course get them to help you enact them, and then you won't have to move. But that is likely to take a lot more time and effort than moving to a place that already matches your preferences better than where you are now. I didn't say moving was the only solution to your problem. I only said it was the simplest one.
    - notacoward 5y ago
      > moving to a place that already matches your preferences better than where you are now Still assuming there is such a a place. Why would you assume (again) that I didn't already research and consider alternatives before plonking down a third of my net worth on a house? I live where I do because it was the best match for what I'm looking for, but the fact that it's the best available doesn't mean I can't wish it to be better for myself and others. Also, even if there were such a better place already, moving itself isn't a no-op. Moving even between ideal locations can be considered worse than staying even in one non-ideal location. Pulling kids out of a school system and away from all of their friends is particularly disruptive. "Love it or leave it" only works for one constituency - those who are fine with the status quo, who don't have or seek any connection to their communities, and don't see a need for there to be more of anything else. It doesn't even engage with people whose circumstances or beliefs are different; it just ignores their existence. I don't think that's constructive. Why are you so dead set against people solving problems instead of running away from them?
whymauri 5y ago
>There are several identifiable square-mile or larger areas with nothing but homes plus maybe one school and one church. Maybe a gas station / Dunkin Donuts within fifteen-minute walking distance. This is just suburban America in general.
- notacoward 5y ago
  Sadly yes, but I don't think that model is even sustainable let alone desirable. We must do better. Since these things do take so much time, that means we must reach some agreement on what "better means" (which doesn't at all have to be the same everywhere) and get moving toward it.
  - u678u 5y ago
    > that means we must reach some agreement on what "better means" 90%(?) of America lives in Single Family homes. We've agreed that this is the best. Dont change it.
parineum 5y ago
>That's no way to live. I live that way and rather enjoy it. If that sounds so terrible to you, I suppose you should move elsewhere instead of turning the neighborhood I live in into the one you'd like to. There's plenty of room for everyone.
u678u 5y ago
So you're saying there are areas with single-family homes and areas with higher density. Surely everyone is happy then? If you want HD, move there, if you want LD you have suburbs. Why do you have to change it?

pdonis 5y ago

> I'd love to change it The simplest way to change your own situation is to move. Different towns, cities, rural areas, etc. with different land uses exist so that people with different preferences can all find some place that reasonably matches their preferences. Making them all the same just so they match your personal preferences makes the situation worse, not better.

notacoward 5y ago
You're assuming infinite variety exists, or can exist. That's so absurd that it's hard to believe it was meant in good faith. No, I can't just select from a menu. What if I want good schools and other facilities that few towns have, and proximity to the people/places that matter to me, and a town that's not so much single-family-home wasteland everywhere but the center? What if I want other people who aren't millionaires to have access to some of these things? Oops, me moving doesn't solve that. Sometimes you have to build the kind of place you want (or think should exist) and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Every town that already exists has been shaped by the conscious choices of people who live there and vote there and serve in offices there. I have just as much right to push for what I want as any of them did. P.S. Almost forgot to point out the "making them all the same" strawman. Never suggested that, champ.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > You're assuming infinite variety exists, or can exist. I'm assuming no such thing. I'm only assuming that there are places that would match your preferences better than where you currently live (or, if you want to be really precise, enough better to justify the costs of moving). Since people move all the time, for precisely that reason (I've done it myself, several times), that does not seem to me like a very extravagant assumption. It is true that no place will be perfect: no place will satisfy literally all of someone's preferences. (There may be rare people that can find such a place, but they are going to be rare enough that we can ignore them for this discussion.) But I did not claim that you could find a place that would be perfect for you. I only claimed that you could find a place that would be better than where you currently are. > Every town that already exists has been shaped by the conscious choices of people who live there and vote there and serve in offices there. That's true. And if you think enough other people in your town would support your desired changes, you can of course get them to help you enact them, and then you won't have to move. But that is likely to take a lot more time and effort than moving to a place that already matches your preferences better than where you are now. I didn't say moving was the only solution to your problem. I only said it was the simplest one.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    > moving to a place that already matches your preferences better than where you are now Still assuming there is such a a place. Why would you assume (again) that I didn't already research and consider alternatives before plonking down a third of my net worth on a house? I live where I do because it was the best match for what I'm looking for, but the fact that it's the best available doesn't mean I can't wish it to be better for myself and others. Also, even if there were such a better place already, moving itself isn't a no-op. Moving even between ideal locations can be considered worse than staying even in one non-ideal location. Pulling kids out of a school system and away from all of their friends is particularly disruptive. "Love it or leave it" only works for one constituency - those who are fine with the status quo, who don't have or seek any connection to their communities, and don't see a need for there to be more of anything else. It doesn't even engage with people whose circumstances or beliefs are different; it just ignores their existence. I don't think that's constructive. Why are you so dead set against people solving problems instead of running away from them?

whymauri 5y ago

>There are several identifiable square-mile or larger areas with nothing but homes plus maybe one school and one church. Maybe a gas station / Dunkin Donuts within fifteen-minute walking distance. This is just suburban America in general.

notacoward 5y ago
Sadly yes, but I don't think that model is even sustainable let alone desirable. We must do better. Since these things do take so much time, that means we must reach some agreement on what "better means" (which doesn't at all have to be the same everywhere) and get moving toward it.
- u678u 5y ago
  > that means we must reach some agreement on what "better means" 90%(?) of America lives in Single Family homes. We've agreed that this is the best. Dont change it.

parineum 5y ago

>That's no way to live. I live that way and rather enjoy it. If that sounds so terrible to you, I suppose you should move elsewhere instead of turning the neighborhood I live in into the one you'd like to. There's plenty of room for everyone.

u678u 5y ago

So you're saying there are areas with single-family homes and areas with higher density. Surely everyone is happy then? If you want HD, move there, if you want LD you have suburbs. Why do you have to change it?