4 ms·

> If so, good for you, I wouldn't want to impose a garden or a parking spot on you. By the same token, calling these out as if they could possibly not be useful

> If so, good for you, I wouldn't want to impose a garden or a parking spot on you. By the same token, calling these out as if they could possibly not be useful, simply because you do not think them useful, is at best, a fallacy. This is grossly out of touch with how most of these features end up existing. Most of the time, there's a minimum setback for the front yard, minimum parking, etc. specified by local zoning ordinances. This isn't bottom-up market-driven demand, it's top-down requirements specified by the local government for that area. So they are, in fact, imposed on whoever wants to live there.

toss1 5y ago
>>This is grossly out of touch with how most of these features end up existing ... this isn't bottom-up market-driven demand, it's top-down requirements specified by the local government for that area. Wrong. Of course it is always implemented by a local govt, but it is very much a result of demand. I very well understand how such regs end up existing, and changing. It is very much related to demand. People are generally against zoning until they realize what it is like to live without zoning, and then it is DEMANDED by the people, and of course implemented by the govt. I've lived in a locale where zoning was first brought in, then developers managed to build a coalition against it and it was abolished, then people realized that that was shi*y, and now it is zoned again. I've also seen and helped organize opposition to new development that would trash both neighborhoods and wetlands and endangered species habitat - when 100 neighbors come out to oppose the proposed variance, that is not some govt imposing it, it is the residents supporting their own zoning. It may be different in larger cities with heavier corporate development influence, but I doubt it, since e.g., I'm sure there are plenty of developers who'd love to develop in San Francisco, but all I hear about is NIMBY opposition to changing neighborhood zoning holding it back. Guess what? That's not some top-down govt, it's locals supporting their own zoning. What is out of touch is your comment inaccurately characterizing it as some faceless govt imposition.

toss1 5y ago

>>This is grossly out of touch with how most of these features end up existing ... this isn't bottom-up market-driven demand, it's top-down requirements specified by the local government for that area. Wrong. Of course it is always implemented by a local govt, but it is very much a result of demand. I very well understand how such regs end up existing, and changing. It is very much related to demand. People are generally against zoning until they realize what it is like to live without zoning, and then it is DEMANDED by the people, and of course implemented by the govt. I've lived in a locale where zoning was first brought in, then developers managed to build a coalition against it and it was abolished, then people realized that that was shi*y, and now it is zoned again. I've also seen and helped organize opposition to new development that would trash both neighborhoods and wetlands and endangered species habitat - when 100 neighbors come out to oppose the proposed variance, that is not some govt imposing it, it is the residents supporting their own zoning. It may be different in larger cities with heavier corporate development influence, but I doubt it, since e.g., I'm sure there are plenty of developers who'd love to develop in San Francisco, but all I hear about is NIMBY opposition to changing neighborhood zoning holding it back. Guess what? That's not some top-down govt, it's locals supporting their own zoning. What is out of touch is your comment inaccurately characterizing it as some faceless govt imposition.