6 ms·

To Start: Zoning laws, land use restrictions, parking minimums, property covenants and restrictions, traffic flow requirements, and minimum offsets.

by foxyv 3y ago

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?
        quesera 3y ago
        The notion that compulsory voting results in an engaged electorate is not plausible to me. Human nature does not work that way. It does not seem wise to solicit (much less demand) opinions from those who would choose to withhold them. These would be the least-informed opinions available. We have enough trouble with the people who insist on sharing when their opinion is unwelcome. (These are often a close second on the least-informed scale!) :)
        akira2501 3y ago
        > voting should just be mandatory tbh Then you get Brazil. Literal clowns and jokes for candidates. > i dont understand why people seem to refuse to participate in democracy Participating in democracy means actually going to meetings, trying to get on the agenda, watching and reporting on the business of the government. Voting is literally the smallest form of participation available. Further, even if it wasn't, I'm a free person. I didn't ask to be born in your democracy, I don't feel required to participate in it, and even your system of participation explicitly denies me the right to say "no." > and it's mandatory here My view is all this does is give politicians a false mandate. They're forcing you to pick from a slate they've likely manipulated and introduce the majority mode of "least worst of." Is that what my forced participation is to boil down to? Giving full authority to the least worst person that got sent up that year? What about this makes you feel that you have participated in anything?
    - joshlemer 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. By this logic, it would seem impossible to critique really anything that any democratically elected government does.
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      Housing discrimination, Jim Crow, anti-asian immigration, and red-lining laws were locally voted on and approved. That doesn't make them just or a good idea. >Why do we need a single solution for everyone, in all areas? Because we have a severe housing shortage. Because why should a crank three blocks over get any input at all into me wanting to put a multiplex on my private property. This isn't advocating for a single solution, it is advocating for a revisiting of a set of rules that are increasingly being found to be the cause of very serious social problems that benefit very few people. If you want to live in a place that is only SFH with no businesses, that necessarily places a restriction on a historically allowable use of someone else's private property. Zoning is a VERY recent invention.
- 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)

To Start: Zoning laws, land use restrictions, parking minimums, property covenants and restrictions, traffic flow requirements, and minimum offsets.

by 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?
        quesera 3y ago
        The notion that compulsory voting results in an engaged electorate is not plausible to me. Human nature does not work that way. It does not seem wise to solicit (much less demand) opinions from those who would choose to withhold them. These would be the least-informed opinions available. We have enough trouble with the people who insist on sharing when their opinion is unwelcome. (These are often a close second on the least-informed scale!) :)
        akira2501 3y ago
        > voting should just be mandatory tbh Then you get Brazil. Literal clowns and jokes for candidates. > i dont understand why people seem to refuse to participate in democracy Participating in democracy means actually going to meetings, trying to get on the agenda, watching and reporting on the business of the government. Voting is literally the smallest form of participation available. Further, even if it wasn't, I'm a free person. I didn't ask to be born in your democracy, I don't feel required to participate in it, and even your system of participation explicitly denies me the right to say "no." > and it's mandatory here My view is all this does is give politicians a false mandate. They're forcing you to pick from a slate they've likely manipulated and introduce the majority mode of "least worst of." Is that what my forced participation is to boil down to? Giving full authority to the least worst person that got sent up that year? What about this makes you feel that you have participated in anything?
  - joshlemer 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. By this logic, it would seem impossible to critique really anything that any democratically elected government does.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    Housing discrimination, Jim Crow, anti-asian immigration, and red-lining laws were locally voted on and approved. That doesn't make them just or a good idea. >Why do we need a single solution for everyone, in all areas? Because we have a severe housing shortage. Because why should a crank three blocks over get any input at all into me wanting to put a multiplex on my private property. This isn't advocating for a single solution, it is advocating for a revisiting of a set of rules that are increasingly being found to be the cause of very serious social problems that benefit very few people. If you want to live in a place that is only SFH with no businesses, that necessarily places a restriction on a historically allowable use of someone else's private property. Zoning is a VERY recent invention.
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)