7 ms·

At the end of the day, zoning should be mostly illegal, except for egregious abuses of public externalities, or industries with major externalities (and even th

At the end of the day, zoning should be mostly illegal, except for egregious abuses of public externalities, or industries with major externalities (and even then it should be handled as a special process). Zoning is a terrible infringement upon property rights. EDIT: also most gov't regulations should be illegal and we should have a severe reigning in of government in these cases. All of a sudden it seems like more 'progressive' people have woken up to the dangers of overregulation, which is great, but it's a bit too little too late, and no one actually votes for it when push comes to shove I've noticed.

supercanuck 4y ago
wollsmoth 4y ago
Zoning makes sense in some cases. I might not want someone to build factory on a residential street for example. But we need more units being built. I don't think it really matters if they're affordable or not, rental or for purchase. Add a million or so units to any city and it should sort itself out I'd think.
- silisili 4y ago
  While I agree with your example, I think we can do better than we do now. Having strictly residential zoning, then strictly commercial zoning, increases reliance on driving everywhere. My first house had very interesting/interspersed zoning. Basically, businesses lined the main street, then houses were built immediately behind them all. I didn't have a neighbor behind me, it was a giant flower warehouse. It felt so private. It was amazing being able to have a house with a big yard, AND be able to walk anywhere. Vet, immediate care center, several restaurants, gas station, and much more all in short walking distance. I think the only thing I had to drive for was grocery and clothes shopping. Everywhere I've lived since seem to put residences by themselves, far from any business. I can't stand it, and wish I could find something like my old setup again.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    It’s a bit amusing that you noted the gas station as being within walking distance.
    - silisili 4y ago
      LOL yeah, the irony isn't lost on me. I guess I meant to paint it more as a place to grab snacks, drinks, foods, medicines, etc. Not the whole gasoline part :).
  - wollsmoth 4y ago
    Yeah I live in a city and don't own a car. Mixed commercial/residential is fine usually. Noise from machinery and stuff should be watched though. You might not want an outdoor EDM club in your backyard. A flower warehouse seems fine!
  - greedo 4y ago
    Replace your flower warehouse with a metal shop. Welding, metal cutting/bending etc. Sure sounds like a fun place to live. There's a reason people generally prefer not to live next to businesses. And despite a lot of rhetoric about how cities are the future, there's an awful lot of people who prefer suburbs.
    - Arrath 4y ago
      A childhood friend lived next to a metal working shop as you suggest being so terrible. Well, maybe it was noisy at times. On the other hand, one hole in the fence and hoo boy did we pilfer scrap and offcuts enough to build forts that would have put Helms Deep to shame.
    - marssaxman 4y ago
      I don't care if people who prefer suburbs choose go live in them, but I would like them to stop imposing their preferences on the rest of us. If someone wants to live next to a metal shop, why should anyone else stop them? If living next to a metal shop sucks, wouldn't that be reflected in the rental price? Maybe it's worth it. Maybe someone who's deaf or hard of hearing will move in, and feel like they're getting a great deal. Who knows? By regulating such things out of existence, the zoning code pretends it knows better than all the rest of us, but it really cannot. I used to live in an apartment above a makerspace, and that was pretty great.
- yesUgotit 4y ago
  Op did call out exceptions for “egregious externalities.” A factory could reasonably be considered to have egregious externalities. But filtering out egregious externalities is… “zoning” so their logic seems circular.
  - stonemetal12 4y ago
    Doesn't seem circular to me, they are against current zoning because it goes beyond what they consider "egregious". Lighter zoning that only dictated limits for sound levels and chemicals used would probably fit their definition of good zoning.
    - anon291 4y ago
      Limits like 'no metal dumps within 1000 feet of residential areas' are fine. They're not zoning, as no pre-existing zone is set up. According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning), zoning is when a city divides land up into zones and then dictates use. Limits like these are just externality captures. They're good and necessary for good urban life. As an example, I was going to buy land in a rural town to develop into a nice little mini tiny home resort. It was going to be super cute. However, the zoning meant I couldn't do it. Not because there wasn't something just like it next door (like other resorts). No, just beacuse the letter next to the property in the registry wasn't the right one, and changing it would be a nightmare. Why? As long as I'm not dumping heavy metals onto neighbor's property, the water, or the air, why do these letters hold so much sway? Exactly why do we need 'recreational-only' property right next to an existing vacation business? It only serves to entrench existing competition, and make new ventures more difficult.
    - yesUgotit 4y ago
      Semantic wank aside; it’s not really up to one poster on HN to dictate what is and is not acceptable within a community. Satisfying their definition is not an obligation.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  Why would someone build a factory where housing will doubtless have better returns sooner? Japan’s maximum nuisance zoning seems more sensible to me than either our status quo and 0 zoning.
  - ejb999 4y ago
    why do you think 'housing will doubtless have better returns'? If that was the case, then there would be zero factories.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      If housing already exists in a place there’s probably demand there and existing infrastructure suitable for residential use. A factory will need access to wider enough roads, a highway/railhead/port, high voltage power lines/gas lines, skilled labor, and so on. A residential area probably isn’t a suitable site along those lines. I’m sure exception exist. That said I like the idea of max nuisance zoning, as I mentioned.
- fy20 4y ago
  My city is mostly low rise, but there is one area 'the business district' where there are exclusively 10+ storey buildings being built. The funny thing is that this used to be an area full of traditional houses (50+ years old), and some plots still are traditional houses. So when walking down the street you have office building, traditional house, office building, car park, traditional house, high rise apartment. 15 years ago before the first office buildings were built this was a bit of a slum area, and some houses are still poorly maintained. I'm sure at first the residents complained big about this, but now the value of their land has skyrocketed for two reasons: a) Developers want to buy their houses and build more office blocks and apartments b) Wealthy individuals want to buy their houses so they can live within walking distance of their office
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nickff 4y ago
  The prospective factory owner doesn't want to locate their facility on a residential street either; there are no attractive amenities there. There's inadequate power, expensive waste disposal, inconvenient shipping, and no access to similar facilities. Zoning wasn't invented to protect residential neighborhoods from factories, it was devised to protect mansions from apartment buildings. https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801479878/zoned-in-the-usa/ https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801479878/zone...
- anon291 4y ago
  It really depends on the kind of factory. I live in a residential neighborhood with 'factories' right down the street. The factories produce small batch food, artisanal crafts, etc (there's a lovely chocolate factory 10 blocks away). Many sell to large audiences, or have national brands. I don't see what the big deal is at all. The neighborhood is lovely. It is more walkable than 95% of American neighborhoods. It's a historic neighborhood with lovely trees, beautiful architecture, and lovely ornamental details. It is highly priced and inhabited by well-to-do people. There is a natural limit on factory growth (namely lack of space). If a company outgrows its space, it'll have to move somewhere more appropriate and let a smaller growing business occupy its space. Why fear such factories? Of course, factories with toxic waste and pollution? Yes those should be built far away from people, but actually, my parents, who live in the suburbs are closer to that sort of thing than I am even though there spot feels more 'open' due to zoning.
- foogazi 4y ago
  > Zoning makes sense I don’t want to live next to a factory, nightclub, power plant, airport, munitions depot, gas station, homeless shelter, drug rehab clinic, massage parlor And that’s fine if you do - I’ll just self segment into the zoned neighborhoods
ejb999 4y ago
whats more likely, removing zoning regulations magically creates more low-income housing? or removing zoning regulations allows corporations to start building factories and stores in residential areas?
- Ekaros 4y ago
  What would be wrong with building stores? And would they build factories if land in other places would likely be cheaper and infrastructure from roads to power better?
  - ejb999 4y ago
    do you really want a 7-11/gas station next to your house in quite residential neighborhood? I doubt it. How about a strip club? how about a battery recycling company? how about a metal recycling plant? How about a bar that is open to 4AM and has lots of live concerts? Zoning regulations exist for a reason - removing them will do ZERO to generate more low-income housing - if there was money to be made in building low-income housing, there would be plenty of low-income housing already.
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      Living next to rather busy intersection, I see no problems with most of those. A shop near to me would be nice, gas station would make things simpler. And what is wrong with strip clubs? Some sort of moral purity that only very very very annoying churches should be allowed? I would ban all of those for many kilometres from any housing. Horribly noisy and the traffic...
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        I have no moral objections to strip clubs, but the large amount of traffic, parking lot noise (of cars and humans), drunken, horny people doing drunken, horny people things (including yelling and fighting), typically late at night is probably incompatible with most people’s idea of quiet residential usage of land.
irrational 4y ago
[flagged]
- bennysomething 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- dudul 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  Ah yes, because removing overly restrictive zoning is totally equivalent to complete deregulation of everything. I bet you support designating things which are not historic as historic landmarks too, so the poors can't move next to you.
- f154hfds 4y ago
  I downvoted this because it's an overly simplistic narrative of the world. I'd say we've hit overregulation in a few areas and we're underregulated in other areas. Some examples of possible overregulation: * Kids' car seats * Nuclear * Rent control * Railroads? (I don't know much about this) Areas that may be under-regulated: * PII * Credit reporting I'm sure many things could be added to both of these lists. Over time need for regulation can become acute, and then technology or demographics change and the regulation can do more harm than good. Really all regulation should require periodic renewal or else vanish to force agencies to reevaluate cost-benefit analysis.
- anon291 4y ago
  > Conservatives have shown over and over again that they will rape and pillage the earth (and the people) if given half a chance, all for the sake of their own wants. Ah right. I forgot that every red state in this country was a post-apocalyptic hellscape. You're as nutty as the republicans that won't step foot in a blue state because they think they'll catch AIDs at a park or something. And for the record, I'm a republican living in a blue state, living in a dense city, in a neighborhood built before zoning was a thing in my city, in a lovely house with many factories and shops and restaurants nearby. Why can we not have any nuanced views in this country that aren't framed immediately as X side is so stupid and never has anything of value to say?
jayd16 4y ago
Life would be a lot easier if we could just focus on identifying bad regulation and making it good (which sometimes means less restrictive) instead of a philosophical war against the idea of regulation. Its needlessly distracting to put the idea of regulation itself into center stage at every turn.
- bilsbie 4y ago
  True except every regulation is good for someone.
- anon291 4y ago
  I have no philosophical war against regulation. I never called to get rid of all regulation. I just said most is bad and should be scrapped. That is true. Replacing the bad with good first involves removing the bad. I don't understand why this is controversial. Why is it that we cannot have an honest discussion about this unless one uses the proper code words?
  - kcplate 4y ago
    The problem is that too many people get caught up believing that intent = effect. So when you suggest that a regulation’s (or even laws) effect might be bad, people tend to assume you meant the intent was bad too. So you have to go through all sorts of linguistic gymnastics so they don’t feel their “good” intentions were being attacked.
    - anon291 4y ago
      Yeah, I had this difficulty with Prop 47 in California (people kept asking me why I didn't want to decriminalize non-violent crimes [1]) or measure 110 in Oregon [2]. It's difficult because basically if you daresay anything, they'll classify you as a member of the 'other' party which means you're a kook who deserves scorn, doxxing, threats (yes, all happened to me, very worrisome, almost had to move). [1] They didn't know it included certain sex crimes and theft with a weapon [2] They had faith the state government would be able to set up a magic mental health care system in 90 days after unemployment checks were delayed for almost four months and in a state where DMV regularly experiences outages that last weeks. I mean... maybe the measure is fine, but we'll never know as there's no possible way it was ever going to be implemented the way they sold it to us, and recognizing that is not some indictment of anyone who supports this measure. But alas, I'm just a curmudgeon.
slg 4y ago
>also most gov't regulations should be illegal and we should have a severe reigning in of government in these cases When will people learn that the existence of bad regulation does not mean all regulation is bad? The answer to bad regulation is good regulation and not no regulation. Just look at the crypto industry. A lot of momentum for crypto came out of frustration with the bad regulation which helped cause the 2008 financial crisis. Fast forward a decade plus and we now we have come to accept that scams and incompetence that are much more malicious and severe are a regular part of that industry because no one wanted any regulation. Is that a win for the general public?
- anon291 4y ago
  I Didn't say all regulation is bad... just most. Most doesn't imply all...
  - slg 4y ago
    If we are being pedantic about the exact choice of words, that isn't what you said either. You said "most gov't regulations should be illegal" which is more extreme than just saying "most regulation is bad".
    - anon291 4y ago
      Sure, and I stand by that. Government regulation should be limited in its scope and we should have laws that mandate how they are created. For example here are some ideas. 1. regulations should be made at the lowest level of government for which it's effective. If states make a regulation that cannot be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level, it should be struck down. This would get rid of a lot of contentious federal regulation which currently polarizes the country needlessly. 2. Regulations should not infringe upon property rights such as the right to build on your property as you please. There's a major differenc between 'this is an eyesore' and 'this produces toxic waste that leaks onto my property'. The former should not be a regulation the government can legally make. The latter can because it impedes property rights of others. I can go on. These are the sort of meta-regulations I think we should have. Honestly, just these two would render many existing regulations already illegal, and they would have to be re-implemented at a more appropriate level of government or scrapped altogether for something different (like a land-use process where instead of zoning, certain lists of activities or activities that the developer should reasonably expect to cause pollution to to other properties require special authorization). But again to be pedantic, my initial response is quite clear that not all regulation should be illegal. If I meant that I would have said 'all regulation should be illegal'. So let's stop putting words in each other's mouths and pretending we have the high ground.
coding123 4y ago
Without zoning most yards would look like trash heaps.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  In Berkeley we invented zoning, our zoning code is 15000 pages long, and there is a junked Volvo in every front yard.
  - anon291 4y ago
    Yeah my city is old enough to have neighborhoods that developed pre-zoning and those that developed post-zoning. The post-zoning ones have trash heaps in yards, cars everywhere. The pre-zoning ones are expensive and manicured and obviously places where people have pride of living, despite there being no HOA. In fact several things HOAs would not allow (statues of unusual taste) exist too that are different but still nice.
sokoloff 4y ago
Even if zoning is outlawed, you still need planning and permitting. It seems like the underground water and sewer pipes designed to water and take the waste of a neighborhood of 50 housing units with 100 bathrooms and 150 bedrooms wouldn’t handle the waste of 500 units with 750 bathrooms and 1500 bedrooms.
- anon291 4y ago
  Okay, and that's totally reasonable. I didn't say no regulation. I just said less. And permits around sewage use are not zoning. Zoning is like 'this parcel is R1' which means, despite the fact that it is the same size as the 'R2' parcel next door, it can only have one home per half acre instead of two because ... reasons.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    “This neighborhood of 50 lots can serve a maximum of 150 bedrooms, which for fairness shall be allocated by right at 3 BRs per lot.” That sounds like R1 zoning in effect, though not exactly.
    - anon291 4y ago
      Well it can handle x number of bathrooms to be assigned to the lots based on people's bidding capacity. Not about apportioning per lot 'per fairness'. Centralized planning for 'fairness' leads to perverse incentives.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        Exactly. Once that bidding [for bedrooms, not bathrooms as that’s what drives sewer load] completes, the NIMBY’s have won. It’s a small inconvenience that they can’t add a legal bedroom in their attic, but at least the character of their neighborhood will be preserved. For any established neighborhood, that will overwhelmingly have already happened. It’s a hard problem, because it’s a people and money problem centered around the space they spend more time than anywhere else and more money than they’ve spent on any other thing.
bsder 4y ago
"Zoning" is fine. The problem is that the primary purpose for US "zoning" was discrimination. "Zoning" in Japan, for example, is different. It sets things like minimum acceptable noise levels, emissions, traffic flows, etc. Within that, everything is allowed. Want to put a house in the middle of a commercial area? Sure, fine. But then you don't get to complain about the noise. Want to put a commercial building in a residential area? Sure, but you will get shut down if you make too much noise or create too much traffic.
- kansface 4y ago
  Hard to image that working in the US even if the laws were to exist. I mostly see the loud commercial business acting with impunity. However, we are good at keeping the business from existing in the first place.
- coding123 4y ago
  I've advocated in the past for noise based zoning and it was, to my surprise in HN pretty well upvoted. It's a great idea. I would offer too however that it should be noise and pollution. You can have a very quiet plastic melting factory killing a lot of people nearby.
  - bsder 4y ago
    Thus why I mentioned "emissions". As much as I love BBQ, if someone opened a restaurant and started smoking at 1AM everyday next to my house, I'd be pretty upset. On the other hand, I probably wouldn't care if a couple of architects wanted to set up shop next to my house.
  - anon291 4y ago
    Toxic waste and pollution is an example of an externality that absolutely should be regulated, but it's not necessary to do that via zoning. Just specify how much space such a factory must have to the nearest residential area in order to be built. That's not a zoning law. That's just a business usage law. Similar to how I can't make noise in my neighborhood past 10PM.
- 4y ago
themagician 4y ago
I agree, but for a different reason. Good zoning laws are what make some places such desirable areas to live. It's great city planning and maintenance that create the few great, walkable, urban areas we have in the US. If we get rid of zoning then soon everywhere will be terrible, but at least everywhere will be equal. If we put property rights above all else we can reach a level of dystopia in our urban areas that will make them far less desirable, and as a result people will spread out more from the urban centers.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Hard disagree. The most walkable, desirable neighborhoods in America are the ones that could not be built under current regulations.
- anon291 4y ago
  No it's not. I live in a 150 year old neighborhood built before zoning. It is an extremely desirably neighborhood. one of the most expensive in this city. It is lovely, desired, and expensive because everyone wants to live here.
  - themagician 4y ago
    It is zoning that has protected it. If it's 150 years old it's likely a historic district.

supercanuck 4y ago

wollsmoth 4y ago

Zoning makes sense in some cases. I might not want someone to build factory on a residential street for example. But we need more units being built. I don't think it really matters if they're affordable or not, rental or for purchase. Add a million or so units to any city and it should sort itself out I'd think.

silisili 4y ago
While I agree with your example, I think we can do better than we do now. Having strictly residential zoning, then strictly commercial zoning, increases reliance on driving everywhere. My first house had very interesting/interspersed zoning. Basically, businesses lined the main street, then houses were built immediately behind them all. I didn't have a neighbor behind me, it was a giant flower warehouse. It felt so private. It was amazing being able to have a house with a big yard, AND be able to walk anywhere. Vet, immediate care center, several restaurants, gas station, and much more all in short walking distance. I think the only thing I had to drive for was grocery and clothes shopping. Everywhere I've lived since seem to put residences by themselves, far from any business. I can't stand it, and wish I could find something like my old setup again.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  It’s a bit amusing that you noted the gas station as being within walking distance.
  - silisili 4y ago
    LOL yeah, the irony isn't lost on me. I guess I meant to paint it more as a place to grab snacks, drinks, foods, medicines, etc. Not the whole gasoline part :).
- wollsmoth 4y ago
  Yeah I live in a city and don't own a car. Mixed commercial/residential is fine usually. Noise from machinery and stuff should be watched though. You might not want an outdoor EDM club in your backyard. A flower warehouse seems fine!
- greedo 4y ago
  Replace your flower warehouse with a metal shop. Welding, metal cutting/bending etc. Sure sounds like a fun place to live. There's a reason people generally prefer not to live next to businesses. And despite a lot of rhetoric about how cities are the future, there's an awful lot of people who prefer suburbs.
  - Arrath 4y ago
    A childhood friend lived next to a metal working shop as you suggest being so terrible. Well, maybe it was noisy at times. On the other hand, one hole in the fence and hoo boy did we pilfer scrap and offcuts enough to build forts that would have put Helms Deep to shame.
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    I don't care if people who prefer suburbs choose go live in them, but I would like them to stop imposing their preferences on the rest of us. If someone wants to live next to a metal shop, why should anyone else stop them? If living next to a metal shop sucks, wouldn't that be reflected in the rental price? Maybe it's worth it. Maybe someone who's deaf or hard of hearing will move in, and feel like they're getting a great deal. Who knows? By regulating such things out of existence, the zoning code pretends it knows better than all the rest of us, but it really cannot. I used to live in an apartment above a makerspace, and that was pretty great.
yesUgotit 4y ago
Op did call out exceptions for “egregious externalities.” A factory could reasonably be considered to have egregious externalities. But filtering out egregious externalities is… “zoning” so their logic seems circular.
- stonemetal12 4y ago
  Doesn't seem circular to me, they are against current zoning because it goes beyond what they consider "egregious". Lighter zoning that only dictated limits for sound levels and chemicals used would probably fit their definition of good zoning.
  - anon291 4y ago
    Limits like 'no metal dumps within 1000 feet of residential areas' are fine. They're not zoning, as no pre-existing zone is set up. According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning), zoning is when a city divides land up into zones and then dictates use. Limits like these are just externality captures. They're good and necessary for good urban life. As an example, I was going to buy land in a rural town to develop into a nice little mini tiny home resort. It was going to be super cute. However, the zoning meant I couldn't do it. Not because there wasn't something just like it next door (like other resorts). No, just beacuse the letter next to the property in the registry wasn't the right one, and changing it would be a nightmare. Why? As long as I'm not dumping heavy metals onto neighbor's property, the water, or the air, why do these letters hold so much sway? Exactly why do we need 'recreational-only' property right next to an existing vacation business? It only serves to entrench existing competition, and make new ventures more difficult.
  - yesUgotit 4y ago
    Semantic wank aside; it’s not really up to one poster on HN to dictate what is and is not acceptable within a community. Satisfying their definition is not an obligation.
ch4s3 4y ago
Why would someone build a factory where housing will doubtless have better returns sooner? Japan’s maximum nuisance zoning seems more sensible to me than either our status quo and 0 zoning.
- ejb999 4y ago
  why do you think 'housing will doubtless have better returns'? If that was the case, then there would be zero factories.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    If housing already exists in a place there’s probably demand there and existing infrastructure suitable for residential use. A factory will need access to wider enough roads, a highway/railhead/port, high voltage power lines/gas lines, skilled labor, and so on. A residential area probably isn’t a suitable site along those lines. I’m sure exception exist. That said I like the idea of max nuisance zoning, as I mentioned.
fy20 4y ago
My city is mostly low rise, but there is one area 'the business district' where there are exclusively 10+ storey buildings being built. The funny thing is that this used to be an area full of traditional houses (50+ years old), and some plots still are traditional houses. So when walking down the street you have office building, traditional house, office building, car park, traditional house, high rise apartment. 15 years ago before the first office buildings were built this was a bit of a slum area, and some houses are still poorly maintained. I'm sure at first the residents complained big about this, but now the value of their land has skyrocketed for two reasons: a) Developers want to buy their houses and build more office blocks and apartments b) Wealthy individuals want to buy their houses so they can live within walking distance of their office
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nickff 4y ago
The prospective factory owner doesn't want to locate their facility on a residential street either; there are no attractive amenities there. There's inadequate power, expensive waste disposal, inconvenient shipping, and no access to similar facilities. Zoning wasn't invented to protect residential neighborhoods from factories, it was devised to protect mansions from apartment buildings. https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801479878/zoned-in-the-usa/ https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801479878/zone...
anon291 4y ago
It really depends on the kind of factory. I live in a residential neighborhood with 'factories' right down the street. The factories produce small batch food, artisanal crafts, etc (there's a lovely chocolate factory 10 blocks away). Many sell to large audiences, or have national brands. I don't see what the big deal is at all. The neighborhood is lovely. It is more walkable than 95% of American neighborhoods. It's a historic neighborhood with lovely trees, beautiful architecture, and lovely ornamental details. It is highly priced and inhabited by well-to-do people. There is a natural limit on factory growth (namely lack of space). If a company outgrows its space, it'll have to move somewhere more appropriate and let a smaller growing business occupy its space. Why fear such factories? Of course, factories with toxic waste and pollution? Yes those should be built far away from people, but actually, my parents, who live in the suburbs are closer to that sort of thing than I am even though there spot feels more 'open' due to zoning.
foogazi 4y ago
> Zoning makes sense I don’t want to live next to a factory, nightclub, power plant, airport, munitions depot, gas station, homeless shelter, drug rehab clinic, massage parlor And that’s fine if you do - I’ll just self segment into the zoned neighborhoods

ejb999 4y ago

whats more likely, removing zoning regulations magically creates more low-income housing? or removing zoning regulations allows corporations to start building factories and stores in residential areas?

Ekaros 4y ago
What would be wrong with building stores? And would they build factories if land in other places would likely be cheaper and infrastructure from roads to power better?
- ejb999 4y ago
  do you really want a 7-11/gas station next to your house in quite residential neighborhood? I doubt it. How about a strip club? how about a battery recycling company? how about a metal recycling plant? How about a bar that is open to 4AM and has lots of live concerts? Zoning regulations exist for a reason - removing them will do ZERO to generate more low-income housing - if there was money to be made in building low-income housing, there would be plenty of low-income housing already.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Living next to rather busy intersection, I see no problems with most of those. A shop near to me would be nice, gas station would make things simpler. And what is wrong with strip clubs? Some sort of moral purity that only very very very annoying churches should be allowed? I would ban all of those for many kilometres from any housing. Horribly noisy and the traffic...
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      I have no moral objections to strip clubs, but the large amount of traffic, parking lot noise (of cars and humans), drunken, horny people doing drunken, horny people things (including yelling and fighting), typically late at night is probably incompatible with most people’s idea of quiet residential usage of land.

irrational 4y ago

[flagged]

bennysomething 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
dudul 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ceeplusplus 4y ago
Ah yes, because removing overly restrictive zoning is totally equivalent to complete deregulation of everything. I bet you support designating things which are not historic as historic landmarks too, so the poors can't move next to you.
f154hfds 4y ago
I downvoted this because it's an overly simplistic narrative of the world. I'd say we've hit overregulation in a few areas and we're underregulated in other areas. Some examples of possible overregulation: * Kids' car seats * Nuclear * Rent control * Railroads? (I don't know much about this) Areas that may be under-regulated: * PII * Credit reporting I'm sure many things could be added to both of these lists. Over time need for regulation can become acute, and then technology or demographics change and the regulation can do more harm than good. Really all regulation should require periodic renewal or else vanish to force agencies to reevaluate cost-benefit analysis.
anon291 4y ago
> Conservatives have shown over and over again that they will rape and pillage the earth (and the people) if given half a chance, all for the sake of their own wants. Ah right. I forgot that every red state in this country was a post-apocalyptic hellscape. You're as nutty as the republicans that won't step foot in a blue state because they think they'll catch AIDs at a park or something. And for the record, I'm a republican living in a blue state, living in a dense city, in a neighborhood built before zoning was a thing in my city, in a lovely house with many factories and shops and restaurants nearby. Why can we not have any nuanced views in this country that aren't framed immediately as X side is so stupid and never has anything of value to say?

jayd16 4y ago

Life would be a lot easier if we could just focus on identifying bad regulation and making it good (which sometimes means less restrictive) instead of a philosophical war against the idea of regulation. Its needlessly distracting to put the idea of regulation itself into center stage at every turn.

bilsbie 4y ago
True except every regulation is good for someone.
anon291 4y ago
I have no philosophical war against regulation. I never called to get rid of all regulation. I just said most is bad and should be scrapped. That is true. Replacing the bad with good first involves removing the bad. I don't understand why this is controversial. Why is it that we cannot have an honest discussion about this unless one uses the proper code words?
- kcplate 4y ago
  The problem is that too many people get caught up believing that intent = effect. So when you suggest that a regulation’s (or even laws) effect might be bad, people tend to assume you meant the intent was bad too. So you have to go through all sorts of linguistic gymnastics so they don’t feel their “good” intentions were being attacked.
  - anon291 4y ago
    Yeah, I had this difficulty with Prop 47 in California (people kept asking me why I didn't want to decriminalize non-violent crimes [1]) or measure 110 in Oregon [2]. It's difficult because basically if you daresay anything, they'll classify you as a member of the 'other' party which means you're a kook who deserves scorn, doxxing, threats (yes, all happened to me, very worrisome, almost had to move). [1] They didn't know it included certain sex crimes and theft with a weapon [2] They had faith the state government would be able to set up a magic mental health care system in 90 days after unemployment checks were delayed for almost four months and in a state where DMV regularly experiences outages that last weeks. I mean... maybe the measure is fine, but we'll never know as there's no possible way it was ever going to be implemented the way they sold it to us, and recognizing that is not some indictment of anyone who supports this measure. But alas, I'm just a curmudgeon.

slg 4y ago

>also most gov't regulations should be illegal and we should have a severe reigning in of government in these cases When will people learn that the existence of bad regulation does not mean all regulation is bad? The answer to bad regulation is good regulation and not no regulation. Just look at the crypto industry. A lot of momentum for crypto came out of frustration with the bad regulation which helped cause the 2008 financial crisis. Fast forward a decade plus and we now we have come to accept that scams and incompetence that are much more malicious and severe are a regular part of that industry because no one wanted any regulation. Is that a win for the general public?

anon291 4y ago
I Didn't say all regulation is bad... just most. Most doesn't imply all...
- slg 4y ago
  If we are being pedantic about the exact choice of words, that isn't what you said either. You said "most gov't regulations should be illegal" which is more extreme than just saying "most regulation is bad".
  - anon291 4y ago
    Sure, and I stand by that. Government regulation should be limited in its scope and we should have laws that mandate how they are created. For example here are some ideas. 1. regulations should be made at the lowest level of government for which it's effective. If states make a regulation that cannot be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level, it should be struck down. This would get rid of a lot of contentious federal regulation which currently polarizes the country needlessly. 2. Regulations should not infringe upon property rights such as the right to build on your property as you please. There's a major differenc between 'this is an eyesore' and 'this produces toxic waste that leaks onto my property'. The former should not be a regulation the government can legally make. The latter can because it impedes property rights of others. I can go on. These are the sort of meta-regulations I think we should have. Honestly, just these two would render many existing regulations already illegal, and they would have to be re-implemented at a more appropriate level of government or scrapped altogether for something different (like a land-use process where instead of zoning, certain lists of activities or activities that the developer should reasonably expect to cause pollution to to other properties require special authorization). But again to be pedantic, my initial response is quite clear that not all regulation should be illegal. If I meant that I would have said 'all regulation should be illegal'. So let's stop putting words in each other's mouths and pretending we have the high ground.

coding123 4y ago

Without zoning most yards would look like trash heaps.

jeffbee 4y ago
In Berkeley we invented zoning, our zoning code is 15000 pages long, and there is a junked Volvo in every front yard.
- anon291 4y ago
  Yeah my city is old enough to have neighborhoods that developed pre-zoning and those that developed post-zoning. The post-zoning ones have trash heaps in yards, cars everywhere. The pre-zoning ones are expensive and manicured and obviously places where people have pride of living, despite there being no HOA. In fact several things HOAs would not allow (statues of unusual taste) exist too that are different but still nice.

sokoloff 4y ago

Even if zoning is outlawed, you still need planning and permitting. It seems like the underground water and sewer pipes designed to water and take the waste of a neighborhood of 50 housing units with 100 bathrooms and 150 bedrooms wouldn’t handle the waste of 500 units with 750 bathrooms and 1500 bedrooms.

anon291 4y ago
Okay, and that's totally reasonable. I didn't say no regulation. I just said less. And permits around sewage use are not zoning. Zoning is like 'this parcel is R1' which means, despite the fact that it is the same size as the 'R2' parcel next door, it can only have one home per half acre instead of two because ... reasons.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  “This neighborhood of 50 lots can serve a maximum of 150 bedrooms, which for fairness shall be allocated by right at 3 BRs per lot.” That sounds like R1 zoning in effect, though not exactly.
  - anon291 4y ago
    Well it can handle x number of bathrooms to be assigned to the lots based on people's bidding capacity. Not about apportioning per lot 'per fairness'. Centralized planning for 'fairness' leads to perverse incentives.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      Exactly. Once that bidding [for bedrooms, not bathrooms as that’s what drives sewer load] completes, the NIMBY’s have won. It’s a small inconvenience that they can’t add a legal bedroom in their attic, but at least the character of their neighborhood will be preserved. For any established neighborhood, that will overwhelmingly have already happened. It’s a hard problem, because it’s a people and money problem centered around the space they spend more time than anywhere else and more money than they’ve spent on any other thing.

bsder 4y ago

"Zoning" is fine. The problem is that the primary purpose for US "zoning" was discrimination. "Zoning" in Japan, for example, is different. It sets things like minimum acceptable noise levels, emissions, traffic flows, etc. Within that, everything is allowed. Want to put a house in the middle of a commercial area? Sure, fine. But then you don't get to complain about the noise. Want to put a commercial building in a residential area? Sure, but you will get shut down if you make too much noise or create too much traffic.

kansface 4y ago
Hard to image that working in the US even if the laws were to exist. I mostly see the loud commercial business acting with impunity. However, we are good at keeping the business from existing in the first place.
coding123 4y ago
I've advocated in the past for noise based zoning and it was, to my surprise in HN pretty well upvoted. It's a great idea. I would offer too however that it should be noise and pollution. You can have a very quiet plastic melting factory killing a lot of people nearby.
- bsder 4y ago
  Thus why I mentioned "emissions". As much as I love BBQ, if someone opened a restaurant and started smoking at 1AM everyday next to my house, I'd be pretty upset. On the other hand, I probably wouldn't care if a couple of architects wanted to set up shop next to my house.
- anon291 4y ago
  Toxic waste and pollution is an example of an externality that absolutely should be regulated, but it's not necessary to do that via zoning. Just specify how much space such a factory must have to the nearest residential area in order to be built. That's not a zoning law. That's just a business usage law. Similar to how I can't make noise in my neighborhood past 10PM.
4y ago

themagician 4y ago

I agree, but for a different reason. Good zoning laws are what make some places such desirable areas to live. It's great city planning and maintenance that create the few great, walkable, urban areas we have in the US. If we get rid of zoning then soon everywhere will be terrible, but at least everywhere will be equal. If we put property rights above all else we can reach a level of dystopia in our urban areas that will make them far less desirable, and as a result people will spread out more from the urban centers.

jeffbee 4y ago
Hard disagree. The most walkable, desirable neighborhoods in America are the ones that could not be built under current regulations.
anon291 4y ago
No it's not. I live in a 150 year old neighborhood built before zoning. It is an extremely desirably neighborhood. one of the most expensive in this city. It is lovely, desired, and expensive because everyone wants to live here.
- themagician 4y ago
  It is zoning that has protected it. If it's 150 years old it's likely a historic district.