4 ms·

I disagree, zoning is very much needed. No human should be forced to live in an industrial area, for noise and pollution reasons if nothing else, those two uses

by sofixa 4y ago

I disagree, zoning is very much needed. No human should be forced to live in an industrial area, for noise and pollution reasons if nothing else, those two uses (residential and industrial) should be well separated. There also a few other common sense zoning logics like keeping buildings at a somewhat similar size (e.g. not have skyscrapers next to a single story house, but have mostly houses, mostly midrize buildings, mostly skyscrapers, with the appropriate infrastructure/greenery needed), having appropriate park to density ratios, etc. In the US zoning is abused to hell due to (sometimes historic, sometimes still ongoing) racism and NIMBYism, but that doesn't invalidate the whole concept.

larsiusprime 4y ago
You can have anti-nuisance laws that accomplish these exact things, and in fact we had those things before we had the modern zoning regime. The book goes into this subject in great detail! You can also have building codes and safety standards without modern euclidean zoning. I strongly recommend you read the book.
- sofixa 4y ago
  What would be the difference between an anti-nuisance law and a zoning law if both prohibit industry in residential areas?
  - watwut 4y ago
    Anti nuisance law allow shops and other small businesses to scattered through area. Zoning does not.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      Unless the zone is 'mid-rize residential with small shops and offices', like is the norm in many European cities.
  - larsiusprime 4y ago
    Scope. Anti nuisance laws are specific and targeted whereas zoning laws are overly broad and tend towards central planning of the built environment.
  - 2ICofafireteam 4y ago
    One prohibits industry and the other prohibits obnoxious behaviour. No matter what, zoning won't let me have a machine shop in my garage. The thing is that machine shops aren't all the same: If I'm servicing heavy equipment there will be low-beds delivering equipment, a driveway full of grit, disassembled machines and oil stains along with welding and arc-air gouging, etc. Not something you want next door; nuisance laws stop this. If I'm making parts for medical instruments, everything is inside, you can't see or hear any of it when I close the door, and traffic consists of me making weekly trips to buy bar stock and the occasional courrier van. What nuisance is that? Both are machine shops but they are far from having the same impact on a street.
    - ecshafer 4y ago
      I grew up next to a small factory / machine shop. By small I mean a factory the size of 3 acres and maybe 30 employees. There was essentially zero nuisance, I couldn't hear the machine shop running unless I was within 10 feet of the wall. This would fall under light industrial most likely, essentially no pollution. I see no reason why this small factory, or similarly a small coffee shop would be banned from being in a residential neighborhood. The "nuisance" argument is exaggerated to absurd levels when you can barely notice them.
      - 2ICofafireteam 4y ago
        Right on. It would be safe to assume a business with 30 employees would bring nearly 30 cars into the street and a coffee shop could increase foot traffic. These things aren't necessarily true, but those assumptions aren't necessarily unreasonable. I think this is where things break down. Out my way, when zoning does allow home-based business, restrictions are mainly about yard/accessory building usage, customer traffic/parking, and number of non-resident employees(I assume because of parking). I see it as an honest attempt to prevent nuisance activity while allowing some flexibility but it also seems lazy and too restrictive. My hypothetical garage based machine shop could be non-conforming and be one complaint away from being shut down no matter how unobtrusive it is.
  - elliekelly 4y ago
    Zoning is preventative. It can stop a nuisance neighbor before they ever start. When a neighbor creates a nuisance the existence of an anti-nuisance law does nothing except provide a potential basis for a potential reprieve several months or years down the line if you have the resources and resolve to see it through. Do you want to live in a home where your neighbor definitely won’t open a night club next door? Or do you want to live in a home where, in the event your neighbor opens a night club next door, you have a solid argument to make when asking for a restraining order. Keep in mind actually enforcing the restraining order is another matter entirely.
- ako 4y ago
  The zoning laws are easier to work with, they’re basically summarizing a large number of anti-nuisance laws. In practice, it shouldn’t really matter if you have one or the other for the resulting city.
  - analog31 4y ago
    A potential difference is which one minimizes the number of lawsuits. The status quo, at least in my locale, is that you have to get prior approval for a project, and in some cases, it has to be open for public comment. On the other hand, if you have to wait until something is built, and then require the neighbors to prove that it's a nuisance, then every single issue becomes a lawsuit.
  - SECProto 4y ago
    > In practice, it shouldn’t really matter if you have one or the other for the resulting city. Oh but it absolutely does. If you live next to a park and your teenage kid want to put an ice cream shop in your garage to operate on summer afternoons, zoning laws prevent it. Anti nuisance laws would not. If you want to run a single-seat hair salon in your neighbourhood, so that the old folks who can't drive could still get their hair cut locally, zoning laws prohibit it. Obviously if you want to open a commercial shipping and receiving warehouse in your garage, both regimes would prevent it.
convolvatron 4y ago
and the converse is largely true. light and certainly heavy industry needs to be able to make noise, handle hazardous materials and potentially vent noxious substances. children and heavy machinery don't mix. we can reasonably argue that retail is different, or that other restriction on height or parking availability are counterproductive - but there seem to be really good reasons for not wanting to mix living and production
ouid 4y ago
yes, one should always remember when reading shit from cato that its an evil PR firm.
- 2ICofafireteam 4y ago
  Is a good point being made or not?
  - ouid 4y ago
    Not. The problem is not with the existence of zoning. The effect a new structure has on its surroundings is an extremely important externality to measure and regulate. I want to be able to not only buy or rent land, but also be able to buy or rent land with restrictions on what can be allowed around it. The most obvious example of when i have this right is when a major polluter pops up in my backyard, but light, noise, traffic, smell, and even view are all thing that should be protected to some extent. Or at least protectable. Developers do not natively care about these externalities, and zoning is a coarse way of preventing that disconnect from completely destroying cities. It is a very complicated problem, and the cato institute is suggesting that we let investors make as much money as they can at the cost of those externalities, and because they are an evil PR firm, they dress that claim up as being good for the health of cities Moreover, the fact that the cato institute is an evil PR firm is absolutely a general aegumwnt that the things that they say are bad faith, bad arguments. If you cannot come up with why they are wrong on your own, you should trust the dont trust cato heuristic, because the entire purpose of PR is to dress up evil as good.
    - 2ICofafireteam 4y ago
      Now you're talking. I agree that zoning shouldn't be done away with entirely. I think you're mostly right about developers not caring. Even the ones that care on a personal level are still in business to make money, but I really think the word evil is overused and hyperbolic in this situation. I've done work for developers trying to squeeze every dollar out of a lot. They can be indifferent, greedy, and even antisocial but I haven't encountered evil.
zajio1am 4y ago
> e.g. not have skyscrapers next to a single story house, but have mostly houses, mostly midrize buildings, mostly skyscrapers, Yes, but these are ones forcing low density and therefore high housing prices.
m463 4y ago
I remember being in mexico city where dense residential was near "las minas" ... the mines. and some people seemed to be pulling their water out of the ground. what could go wrong?

by sofixa 4y ago

larsiusprime 4y ago

You can have anti-nuisance laws that accomplish these exact things, and in fact we had those things before we had the modern zoning regime. The book goes into this subject in great detail! You can also have building codes and safety standards without modern euclidean zoning. I strongly recommend you read the book.

sofixa 4y ago
What would be the difference between an anti-nuisance law and a zoning law if both prohibit industry in residential areas?
- watwut 4y ago
  Anti nuisance law allow shops and other small businesses to scattered through area. Zoning does not.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Unless the zone is 'mid-rize residential with small shops and offices', like is the norm in many European cities.
- larsiusprime 4y ago
  Scope. Anti nuisance laws are specific and targeted whereas zoning laws are overly broad and tend towards central planning of the built environment.
- 2ICofafireteam 4y ago
  One prohibits industry and the other prohibits obnoxious behaviour. No matter what, zoning won't let me have a machine shop in my garage. The thing is that machine shops aren't all the same: If I'm servicing heavy equipment there will be low-beds delivering equipment, a driveway full of grit, disassembled machines and oil stains along with welding and arc-air gouging, etc. Not something you want next door; nuisance laws stop this. If I'm making parts for medical instruments, everything is inside, you can't see or hear any of it when I close the door, and traffic consists of me making weekly trips to buy bar stock and the occasional courrier van. What nuisance is that? Both are machine shops but they are far from having the same impact on a street.
  - ecshafer 4y ago
    I grew up next to a small factory / machine shop. By small I mean a factory the size of 3 acres and maybe 30 employees. There was essentially zero nuisance, I couldn't hear the machine shop running unless I was within 10 feet of the wall. This would fall under light industrial most likely, essentially no pollution. I see no reason why this small factory, or similarly a small coffee shop would be banned from being in a residential neighborhood. The "nuisance" argument is exaggerated to absurd levels when you can barely notice them.
    - 2ICofafireteam 4y ago
      Right on. It would be safe to assume a business with 30 employees would bring nearly 30 cars into the street and a coffee shop could increase foot traffic. These things aren't necessarily true, but those assumptions aren't necessarily unreasonable. I think this is where things break down. Out my way, when zoning does allow home-based business, restrictions are mainly about yard/accessory building usage, customer traffic/parking, and number of non-resident employees(I assume because of parking). I see it as an honest attempt to prevent nuisance activity while allowing some flexibility but it also seems lazy and too restrictive. My hypothetical garage based machine shop could be non-conforming and be one complaint away from being shut down no matter how unobtrusive it is.
- elliekelly 4y ago
  Zoning is preventative. It can stop a nuisance neighbor before they ever start. When a neighbor creates a nuisance the existence of an anti-nuisance law does nothing except provide a potential basis for a potential reprieve several months or years down the line if you have the resources and resolve to see it through. Do you want to live in a home where your neighbor definitely won’t open a night club next door? Or do you want to live in a home where, in the event your neighbor opens a night club next door, you have a solid argument to make when asking for a restraining order. Keep in mind actually enforcing the restraining order is another matter entirely.
ako 4y ago
The zoning laws are easier to work with, they’re basically summarizing a large number of anti-nuisance laws. In practice, it shouldn’t really matter if you have one or the other for the resulting city.
- analog31 4y ago
  A potential difference is which one minimizes the number of lawsuits. The status quo, at least in my locale, is that you have to get prior approval for a project, and in some cases, it has to be open for public comment. On the other hand, if you have to wait until something is built, and then require the neighbors to prove that it's a nuisance, then every single issue becomes a lawsuit.
- SECProto 4y ago
  > In practice, it shouldn’t really matter if you have one or the other for the resulting city. Oh but it absolutely does. If you live next to a park and your teenage kid want to put an ice cream shop in your garage to operate on summer afternoons, zoning laws prevent it. Anti nuisance laws would not. If you want to run a single-seat hair salon in your neighbourhood, so that the old folks who can't drive could still get their hair cut locally, zoning laws prohibit it. Obviously if you want to open a commercial shipping and receiving warehouse in your garage, both regimes would prevent it.

convolvatron 4y ago

and the converse is largely true. light and certainly heavy industry needs to be able to make noise, handle hazardous materials and potentially vent noxious substances. children and heavy machinery don't mix. we can reasonably argue that retail is different, or that other restriction on height or parking availability are counterproductive - but there seem to be really good reasons for not wanting to mix living and production

ouid 4y ago

yes, one should always remember when reading shit from cato that its an evil PR firm.

2ICofafireteam 4y ago
Is a good point being made or not?
- ouid 4y ago
  Not. The problem is not with the existence of zoning. The effect a new structure has on its surroundings is an extremely important externality to measure and regulate. I want to be able to not only buy or rent land, but also be able to buy or rent land with restrictions on what can be allowed around it. The most obvious example of when i have this right is when a major polluter pops up in my backyard, but light, noise, traffic, smell, and even view are all thing that should be protected to some extent. Or at least protectable. Developers do not natively care about these externalities, and zoning is a coarse way of preventing that disconnect from completely destroying cities. It is a very complicated problem, and the cato institute is suggesting that we let investors make as much money as they can at the cost of those externalities, and because they are an evil PR firm, they dress that claim up as being good for the health of cities Moreover, the fact that the cato institute is an evil PR firm is absolutely a general aegumwnt that the things that they say are bad faith, bad arguments. If you cannot come up with why they are wrong on your own, you should trust the dont trust cato heuristic, because the entire purpose of PR is to dress up evil as good.
  - 2ICofafireteam 4y ago
    Now you're talking. I agree that zoning shouldn't be done away with entirely. I think you're mostly right about developers not caring. Even the ones that care on a personal level are still in business to make money, but I really think the word evil is overused and hyperbolic in this situation. I've done work for developers trying to squeeze every dollar out of a lot. They can be indifferent, greedy, and even antisocial but I haven't encountered evil.

zajio1am 4y ago

> e.g. not have skyscrapers next to a single story house, but have mostly houses, mostly midrize buildings, mostly skyscrapers, Yes, but these are ones forcing low density and therefore high housing prices.

m463 4y ago

I remember being in mexico city where dense residential was near "las minas" ... the mines. and some people seemed to be pulling their water out of the ground. what could go wrong?