3 ms·

I was referring more to the additional processes that have been weaponized like CEQA. In most of the US, additional zoning is welcomed. Zoning for smaller loca

I was referring more to the additional processes that have been weaponized like CEQA. In most of the US, additional zoning is welcomed. Zoning for smaller locales is controlled by financial limitations, rather than entrenched interests. Who doesn't want utilities to be brought to their area? For example, Puyallup WA is ~40 mi away from Seattle and there are still residences in Industrial zoned areas waiting for residential zoning to bring them sewer access. It's about the cost, not grassroots opposition. Most towns can grow in every direction as fast as they can build. The issue is cost of land development and regulation, moreso than NIMBY influence.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Zoning controls the type of housing that is developed, and thus far typically represents the interests of NIMBYs without explicitly saying as much. Sure, changing zoning from "light industrial" or "commercial" to include some level of residential is often welcome, and is generally a good idea. But such changes are not the crux of the battle over housing. We don't actually want towns to grow in every direction without bounds, as a general rule: we want them to have sufficient housing that the people who need to live there can afford to do so. That typically requires dealing with the zoning laws that prevent increases in residential density ... i.e. NIMBY-ism.