5 ms·

Oh, I believe it. That's great! I don't mind that people who want to live like that CAN live like that if they can afford it. But it should not be the ONLY way

by foxyv 3y ago

Oh, I believe it. That's great! I don't mind that people who want to live like that CAN live like that if they can afford it. But it should not be the ONLY way people can live. Right now our laws prevent us from building affordable and livable homes like I mentioned above. Only the richest get to live in such communities.

akira2501 3y ago
> Right now our laws prevent us from building affordable and livable homes Which laws are those?
- foxyv 3y ago
  To Start: Zoning laws, land use restrictions, parking minimums, property covenants and restrictions, traffic flow requirements, and minimum offsets.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    Do these laws serve no other purpose other than to prevent building? Which of these laws can be discarded to 'solve' the housing problem? Which should we keep?
    - eikenberry 3y ago
      The obvious one is residential only zoning. How are you supposed to be able to walk to local businesses if there are no local businesses as zoning prohibits them?
      - ejb999 3y ago
        zoning laws are usually locally voted on and approved - if the locals in any given area want to allow business, they can - but lots of people don't want to live close to businesses - so they vote accordingly. People that want to live near businesses and don't, should move to places that have it - there are lots of places in the country like that. People that want to live in an entirely residential area, but don't, should move to those places that are. Why do we need a single solution for everyone, in all areas?
        foxyv 3y ago
        Local elections have notoriously low voter turnout and candidates are often supported by developers and real estate brokers. Often local city council members are outright bribed by people who have an interest in only approving their own projects. In addition, sometimes city counselors will prevent zoning changes to increase the value of their own property. City officials are often the biggest bang for your buck when it comes to corruption. A really prominent case in Moreno Valley, CA exposes how this often works: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/losangeles/news/press-releases/former-member-of-moreno-valley-city-council-sentenced-to-five-years-in-federal-prison-for-taking-2.3-million-cash-bribe https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/losangeles/news... And LA: https://www.dailynews.com/2024/01/26/13-years-in-federal-prison-for-jose-huizar-ex-la-councilman-in-conspiracy-case/ https://www.dailynews.com/2024/01/26/13-years-in-federal-pri... And Dallas: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/dallas-city-council-member-carolyn-davis-pleads-guilty-accepting-bribes https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/dallas-city-council-mem...
        akira2501 3y ago
        > Local elections have notoriously low voter turnout The flaw in democracy, manifest. You simply can't say "We literally do not need anyone. Things are fine. If there's an emergency we can convene something, but outside of that, I don't actually want a body convened with the responsibility of changing things randomly. I'm busy and I don't have the time to keep an eye on these goofs." It should be that if voter turnout is less than 25%, the election is canceled and either held again, or the seat just left vacant until the next election. Or you are elected, but without power until an emergency is declared, then you have the standard powers but only for that temporary period.
        ambichook 3y ago
        voting should just be mandatory tbh, i dont understand why people seem to refuse to participate in democracy maybe it's a cultural thing? i'm australian and it's mandatory here so that may be affecting my views?
    - sd-response 3y ago
      In Oregon, it became legal to build ADU's a few years ago. [0] In Washington, certain cities put restrictions on SRO units. The state is passing legislation to make that easier. [1][2] These are just cities I've lived in. I would imagine other cities are facing similar zoning questions. Some of us think that more housing is a good thing, and laws preventing units like ADUs or SROs are prima facie misguided. [0] https://www.oregonlive.com/hg/2021/09/put-a-spare-home-or-two-in-your-backyard-oregons-adu-rules-allow-for-more-income-producing-rentals.html https://www.oregonlive.com/hg/2021/09/put-a-spare-home-or-tw... [1] https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/vault/micro-housing https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/vault/micro-housing [2] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/once-curbed-in-seattle-tiny-apartments-poised-for-big-boost-from-legislature/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/once-curbe...
    - ProfessorLayton 3y ago
      Actually yes they do more than just prevent building, they were also implemented to keep "undesirables" out of more affluent areas by making it too expensive for them. This is covered extensively in the book The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein, and is a great read. Specifically: - Huge min lot sizes - Offsets - Covenants* We can start by removing/revising those. (*Certain covenants are no longer enforceable today)
    - VintageCool 3y ago
      https://indyweek.com/news/opinions/op-ed-the-purpose-of-zoning-is-to-prevent-affordable-housing/ https://indyweek.com/news/opinions/op-ed-the-purpose-of-zoni... https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/06/17/exclusionary-zoning-its-effect-on-racial-discrimination-in-the-housing-market/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/06/17/... Some of the housing regulations were legitimately put in place for safety reasons to protect people. Others were put in place to keep black and Asian people out. Especially after government initiatives to prevent discrimination in housing like the 1968 Fair Housing Act, efforts to keep out minorities became cloaked in the garb of "public safety", and minority-excluding regulations were sanitized into affordability-excluding regulations.
      - tomcar288 3y ago
        but it's a lot more than that. Blue cities are by far the worst offenders at anti-housing regulations. part of it must be that people are funadamentally extremely conservative when it comes to housing.
        screye 3y ago
        This is important to highlight. The worst issues show up in deep blue cities. SF is the worst offender. It's more so a generation issue than a red-blue issue. Urbanism is bipartisan.
  - drivers99 3y ago
    minimum lot size, setback requirements (not sure if that's the same as offsets you mentioned)
- MattGrommes 3y ago
  Google 'missing middle'. There are tons of laws restricting what kind of homes can be built so we end up with whole swaths of cities being a single kind of home that is unaffordable and doesn't work for a lot of people.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    We no longer build the types of urban homes that were popular when this was primarily an agrarian country, and this only happened because of zoning laws?
    - silverlyra 3y ago
      > when this was a primarily agrarian country it sounds ironic, but much of the shift to suburban development patterns in the USA was indeed driven by the Great Migration into cities – specifically, the migration of formerly-enslaved Black Americans out of the rural south and into cities. US public policy was very explicit about disinvesting in cities and destroying vibrant urban neighborhoods, replacing them with freeways and parking lots. today, large portions of US cities are zoned for exclusively single-family homes, and other zoning requirements like parking minimums, and minimum setback and lot sizes continue to slow urban, transit-oriented redevelopment.
      - shiroiushi 3y ago
        Many of the US's fundamental problems stem from racism.
      - akira2501 3y ago
        > the migration of formerly-enslaved Black Americans out of the rural south and into cities My understanding is this is where it started but the mass migration of everyone off of the farm really started to happen when gasoline engines became standard equipment and replaced beasts of burden. > and lot sizes continue to slow urban, transit-oriented redevelopment. I'm not convinced this is the entirety of the problem, fortunately US policy is not a monolith, and several cities are experimenting with different configurations. It will be interesting to see if "developers" start opting for the multiplex configurations that are now being allowed in traditional single family zones.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  Try to build a multi unit housing development in just about every SFH neighborhood in North America and you will quickly discover the layers of laws that actively prevent it.
jorvi 3y ago
Plus, if the choice is going to be between great family homes for some + terrible quality ultra-expensive appartements for most, or decent reasonably priced appartements for everyone but few family homes.. then yeah, screw family homes.

by foxyv 3y ago

akira2501 3y ago

> Right now our laws prevent us from building affordable and livable homes Which laws are those?

foxyv 3y ago
To Start: Zoning laws, land use restrictions, parking minimums, property covenants and restrictions, traffic flow requirements, and minimum offsets.
- akira2501 3y ago
  Do these laws serve no other purpose other than to prevent building? Which of these laws can be discarded to 'solve' the housing problem? Which should we keep?
  - eikenberry 3y ago
    The obvious one is residential only zoning. How are you supposed to be able to walk to local businesses if there are no local businesses as zoning prohibits them?
    - ejb999 3y ago
      zoning laws are usually locally voted on and approved - if the locals in any given area want to allow business, they can - but lots of people don't want to live close to businesses - so they vote accordingly. People that want to live near businesses and don't, should move to places that have it - there are lots of places in the country like that. People that want to live in an entirely residential area, but don't, should move to those places that are. Why do we need a single solution for everyone, in all areas?
      - foxyv 3y ago
        Local elections have notoriously low voter turnout and candidates are often supported by developers and real estate brokers. Often local city council members are outright bribed by people who have an interest in only approving their own projects. In addition, sometimes city counselors will prevent zoning changes to increase the value of their own property. City officials are often the biggest bang for your buck when it comes to corruption. A really prominent case in Moreno Valley, CA exposes how this often works: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/losangeles/news/press-releases/former-member-of-moreno-valley-city-council-sentenced-to-five-years-in-federal-prison-for-taking-2.3-million-cash-bribe https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/losangeles/news... And LA: https://www.dailynews.com/2024/01/26/13-years-in-federal-prison-for-jose-huizar-ex-la-councilman-in-conspiracy-case/ https://www.dailynews.com/2024/01/26/13-years-in-federal-pri... And Dallas: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/dallas-city-council-member-carolyn-davis-pleads-guilty-accepting-bribes https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/dallas-city-council-mem...
        akira2501 3y ago
        > Local elections have notoriously low voter turnout The flaw in democracy, manifest. You simply can't say "We literally do not need anyone. Things are fine. If there's an emergency we can convene something, but outside of that, I don't actually want a body convened with the responsibility of changing things randomly. I'm busy and I don't have the time to keep an eye on these goofs." It should be that if voter turnout is less than 25%, the election is canceled and either held again, or the seat just left vacant until the next election. Or you are elected, but without power until an emergency is declared, then you have the standard powers but only for that temporary period.
        ambichook 3y ago
        voting should just be mandatory tbh, i dont understand why people seem to refuse to participate in democracy maybe it's a cultural thing? i'm australian and it's mandatory here so that may be affecting my views?
  - sd-response 3y ago
    In Oregon, it became legal to build ADU's a few years ago. [0] In Washington, certain cities put restrictions on SRO units. The state is passing legislation to make that easier. [1][2] These are just cities I've lived in. I would imagine other cities are facing similar zoning questions. Some of us think that more housing is a good thing, and laws preventing units like ADUs or SROs are prima facie misguided. [0] https://www.oregonlive.com/hg/2021/09/put-a-spare-home-or-two-in-your-backyard-oregons-adu-rules-allow-for-more-income-producing-rentals.html https://www.oregonlive.com/hg/2021/09/put-a-spare-home-or-tw... [1] https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/vault/micro-housing https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/vault/micro-housing [2] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/once-curbed-in-seattle-tiny-apartments-poised-for-big-boost-from-legislature/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/once-curbe...
  - ProfessorLayton 3y ago
    Actually yes they do more than just prevent building, they were also implemented to keep "undesirables" out of more affluent areas by making it too expensive for them. This is covered extensively in the book The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein, and is a great read. Specifically: - Huge min lot sizes - Offsets - Covenants* We can start by removing/revising those. (*Certain covenants are no longer enforceable today)
  - VintageCool 3y ago
    https://indyweek.com/news/opinions/op-ed-the-purpose-of-zoning-is-to-prevent-affordable-housing/ https://indyweek.com/news/opinions/op-ed-the-purpose-of-zoni... https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/06/17/exclusionary-zoning-its-effect-on-racial-discrimination-in-the-housing-market/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/06/17/... Some of the housing regulations were legitimately put in place for safety reasons to protect people. Others were put in place to keep black and Asian people out. Especially after government initiatives to prevent discrimination in housing like the 1968 Fair Housing Act, efforts to keep out minorities became cloaked in the garb of "public safety", and minority-excluding regulations were sanitized into affordability-excluding regulations.
    - tomcar288 3y ago
      but it's a lot more than that. Blue cities are by far the worst offenders at anti-housing regulations. part of it must be that people are funadamentally extremely conservative when it comes to housing.
      - screye 3y ago
        This is important to highlight. The worst issues show up in deep blue cities. SF is the worst offender. It's more so a generation issue than a red-blue issue. Urbanism is bipartisan.
- drivers99 3y ago
  minimum lot size, setback requirements (not sure if that's the same as offsets you mentioned)
MattGrommes 3y ago
Google 'missing middle'. There are tons of laws restricting what kind of homes can be built so we end up with whole swaths of cities being a single kind of home that is unaffordable and doesn't work for a lot of people.
- akira2501 3y ago
  We no longer build the types of urban homes that were popular when this was primarily an agrarian country, and this only happened because of zoning laws?
  - silverlyra 3y ago
    > when this was a primarily agrarian country it sounds ironic, but much of the shift to suburban development patterns in the USA was indeed driven by the Great Migration into cities – specifically, the migration of formerly-enslaved Black Americans out of the rural south and into cities. US public policy was very explicit about disinvesting in cities and destroying vibrant urban neighborhoods, replacing them with freeways and parking lots. today, large portions of US cities are zoned for exclusively single-family homes, and other zoning requirements like parking minimums, and minimum setback and lot sizes continue to slow urban, transit-oriented redevelopment.
    - shiroiushi 3y ago
      Many of the US's fundamental problems stem from racism.
    - akira2501 3y ago
      > the migration of formerly-enslaved Black Americans out of the rural south and into cities My understanding is this is where it started but the mass migration of everyone off of the farm really started to happen when gasoline engines became standard equipment and replaced beasts of burden. > and lot sizes continue to slow urban, transit-oriented redevelopment. I'm not convinced this is the entirety of the problem, fortunately US policy is not a monolith, and several cities are experimenting with different configurations. It will be interesting to see if "developers" start opting for the multiplex configurations that are now being allowed in traditional single family zones.
dghlsakjg 3y ago
Try to build a multi unit housing development in just about every SFH neighborhood in North America and you will quickly discover the layers of laws that actively prevent it.

jorvi 3y ago

Plus, if the choice is going to be between great family homes for some + terrible quality ultra-expensive appartements for most, or decent reasonably priced appartements for everyone but few family homes.. then yeah, screw family homes.