5 ms·

Because it's their home, and they literally own the land. Irrespective of the legalities, you do realize zoning is an almost universal concept? You do realize

Because it's their home, and they literally own the land. Irrespective of the legalities, you do realize zoning is an almost universal concept? You do realize that you can't just waltz into some neighbourhood, and screw everyone over by building a giant skyscraper in the middle of their land? (Even if this law were supposedly upheld) Probably over 90% of communities in the US, even those with more open zoning, wouldn't allow any arbitrary thing to be built. Finally, it's debatable if the 'state law' is on their side, or even if it's constitutional. A better question would be why you think you have a right to go into a quiet community and screw everyone over? Your actions affect others. If the community doesn't want some thing, then go elsewhere. There's plenty of land. In a place like Hong Kong, where land is very scarce, you run into a completely different set of social issues, with the poor being held to the economic wall otherwise. There's plenty of space in the US, even in Cali.

briandear 4y ago
Fun fact: Houston doesn’t have zoning and somehow it works just fine. There are deep restricted communities but you know that before you buy there.
- quacked 4y ago
  You've never lived in Houston, have you? It's a depressing concrete swamp with high cancer rates. The defining aesthetic is "strip mall" and the traffic is from Hell. The nice parts are the parts filled with rich NIMBYs, like the Rice campus and the wooded neighborhoods to the west of downtown. Edit: I forgot to mention all the cheap housing built by profit-hawks on flood plains that was destroyed or severely damaged in Harvey.
ziddoap 4y ago
Why include all those little personal jabs? It doesn't make me any more inclined to agree with your point of view. >A better question would be why you think you have a right to go into a quiet community and screw everyone over? I didn't even come close to suggesting that I should be able to go somewhere and screw people over. It almost feels like you're replying to some other comment, given how little relevance it had to my question.
diebeforei485 4y ago
Single family only zoning is not very universal. It's largely a US and Canada thing and it's a relatively recent phenomenon. Residential in european countries allows small multifamily and small-scale business like bakeries so it would be considered mixed-use in the US/Canada.
- mikem170 4y ago
  Agreed. Same in Japan, where the basic zoning allows for triplexes with low impact businesses allowed as a percentage of the square footage, having setbacks to ensure you don't put three stories on the edge of your property blocking the neighbors sun all day. As a result they have walkable neighborhoods with character and variety. It's disappointing that NIMBYs in the U.S. have basically forced all new construction to big single use single family housing developments on the edges of urban areas. They say they are opposed to large developers, but large developers are the only ones who can navigate the current zoning regime. As a result we car dependent housing developments with no character and no variety.
abigail95 4y ago
You can't build a skyscraper on someone elses land. It would be your own land. To buy the land, the community has to sell it to you. To encumber someone else from building something on their own land - is strange and greedy. You're trying to capture the value of your neighbours land without giving them anything for it. If you want to live in a house, surrounded by other houses then you need to buy all the surrounding land so you can decide what gets built on it. If you allowed the density to increase, single detached "quiet" houses would become cheaper and more people would be able to live in them - because the people who want higher density but can't have it are forced into buying bigger houses at higher prices.

briandear 4y ago

Fun fact: Houston doesn’t have zoning and somehow it works just fine. There are deep restricted communities but you know that before you buy there.

quacked 4y ago
You've never lived in Houston, have you? It's a depressing concrete swamp with high cancer rates. The defining aesthetic is "strip mall" and the traffic is from Hell. The nice parts are the parts filled with rich NIMBYs, like the Rice campus and the wooded neighborhoods to the west of downtown. Edit: I forgot to mention all the cheap housing built by profit-hawks on flood plains that was destroyed or severely damaged in Harvey.

ziddoap 4y ago

Why include all those little personal jabs? It doesn't make me any more inclined to agree with your point of view. >A better question would be why you think you have a right to go into a quiet community and screw everyone over? I didn't even come close to suggesting that I should be able to go somewhere and screw people over. It almost feels like you're replying to some other comment, given how little relevance it had to my question.

diebeforei485 4y ago

Single family only zoning is not very universal. It's largely a US and Canada thing and it's a relatively recent phenomenon. Residential in european countries allows small multifamily and small-scale business like bakeries so it would be considered mixed-use in the US/Canada.

mikem170 4y ago
Agreed. Same in Japan, where the basic zoning allows for triplexes with low impact businesses allowed as a percentage of the square footage, having setbacks to ensure you don't put three stories on the edge of your property blocking the neighbors sun all day. As a result they have walkable neighborhoods with character and variety. It's disappointing that NIMBYs in the U.S. have basically forced all new construction to big single use single family housing developments on the edges of urban areas. They say they are opposed to large developers, but large developers are the only ones who can navigate the current zoning regime. As a result we car dependent housing developments with no character and no variety.

abigail95 4y ago

You can't build a skyscraper on someone elses land. It would be your own land. To buy the land, the community has to sell it to you. To encumber someone else from building something on their own land - is strange and greedy. You're trying to capture the value of your neighbours land without giving them anything for it. If you want to live in a house, surrounded by other houses then you need to buy all the surrounding land so you can decide what gets built on it. If you allowed the density to increase, single detached "quiet" houses would become cheaper and more people would be able to live in them - because the people who want higher density but can't have it are forced into buying bigger houses at higher prices.