3 ms·

> If areas are not zoned for more housing that requires approvals. So zone it for housing. I will once again float that zoning should be federalized, and ever

> If areas are not zoned for more housing that requires approvals. So zone it for housing. I will once again float that zoning should be federalized, and everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right. If you have a problem with what I want to put on my land, buy my land. I'm not responsible for your property value, you are. The federal government has the authority to invalidate local city council ordinances - for instance the FCC invalidated Chicago rules around satellite dishes. They also regulate housing in e.g. the Fair Housing Act. The housing market is interstate commerce. Houston has no zoning rules and is one of the most affordable major metros in the US. Who cares that some guy lives behind a rollercoaster? [1] > Infrastructure also needs to be considered. If only there was an entity that was responsible for infrastructure, some kind of city council :) the council should be required to develop infrastructure to meet the actual demand in the area. [edit] The whole concept of single-family zoning started in Berkeley as a way to keep minorities from owning homes in the area. By making them more expensive. It quickly spread throughout the US. The whole concept of zoning was meant to be exclusionary through pricing, and guess what, it works. [2] [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/90766731/a-bold-case-against-zoning https://www.fastcompany.com/90766731/a-bold-case-against-zon... [2] https://www.sierraclub.org/san-francisco-bay/blog/2021/06/end-single-family-zoning-berkeley-forces-us-reflect-our-past https://www.sierraclub.org/san-francisco-bay/blog/2021/06/en...

tivert 3y ago
> I will once again float that zoning should be federalized, and everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right. If you have a problem with what I want to put on my land, buy my land. I'm not responsible for your property value. That's unreasonable. What if I'm your neighbor and want to turn my land into a toxic waste dump and burn tires for heat and/or fun? I'm not responsible for your property value, right? Communities are actual things. Pretending like they're not to "solve" one problem just means you'll get other problems.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  > That's unreasonable. What if I'm your neighbor and want to turn my land into a toxic waste dumb and burn tires for heat and/or fun? I'm not responsible for your property value, right? There is plenty of prior art that draws exactly the right compromises. For example Houston as I mentioned, and Japan.
  - tivert 3y ago
    >> That's unreasonable. What if I'm your neighbor and want to turn my land into a toxic waste dumb and burn tires for heat and/or fun? I'm not responsible for your property value, right? > Zoning should be residential, commercial and industrial. Whatever happened to "everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right. If you have a problem with what I want to put on my land, buy my land. I'm not responsible for your property value." It seems like that got abandoned fast.
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      > Whatever happened to "everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right?" An obviously tortured reading of what I was arguing for, so I edited it for clarity. Hope that helps. I suspect however that you'd find burning tires in an urban area to run afoul not of zoning rules but of the EPA.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > An obviously tortured reading of what I was arguing for, so I edited it for clarity. Hope that helps. By "tortured reading" do you mean "literal and straightforward" reading?
        arcticbull 3y ago
        What is it that has you so married to restricting what other people can do on their property? Especially to the extent that you would engage in bad faith arguments? Are you trying to keep people out of your neighborhood, or are you trying to keep housing unaffordable? Have you decided that, entirely arbitrarily, the neighborhood is good now and should never change? Generally curious as to your animus. Because again the land uses you suggested aren't a function of zoning rules at all. They're a straw man.
- epistasis 3y ago
  If somebody considers housing to be toxic waste, may I suggest that they live somewhere that doesn't have huge demand? Its fundamentally greedy and unfair to deny lots of people something they would like, without just compensation to all the people that would like to live in Hawaii (or any other high demand area) Land should be for all, not for the few. If you want a lot of land, there's a lot of it out there, you just need to go where there are few people. If you want a lot of land where other people also want a lot of land, you need to pay everybody else for that excessive consumption.
votepaunchy 3y ago
> The housing market is interstate commerce. If the housing market was interstate commerce, then it could not be regulated by state or local governments, as that power is reserved to the Congress.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  The power to regulate interstate markets doesn't take the ability of local governments to enact legislation away - it gives the federal government supremacy. It gives the federal government the authority to enact regulation when local laws unnecessarily impede interstate commerce. You'll be happy to know that in Russell v. United States, 471 U.S. 858 (1985) the Supreme Court affirmed the interstate nature of the housing rental market. [1] The New York State Bar Association further makes a case for the Dormant Commerce Clause in zoning. [2] And of course, the DOJ maintains that the Commerce Clause was key to enacting the Fair Housing Act in this amicus brief in 2015. [3] There's a ton of explanation in both the body and in the associated footnotes. [1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/471/858.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/471/858.h... [2] https://nysba.org/how-the-dormant-commerce-clause-can-fight-zoning-discrimination/ https://nysba.org/how-the-dormant-commerce-clause-can-fight-... [3] https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-cases-documents-192 https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-ca...
rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> The federal government has the authority to invalidate local city council ordinances - for instance the FCC invalidated Chicago rules around satellite dishes The fact that the federal government had the authority to invalidate a specific local ordinance does not mean that the federal government has the authority to invalidate any local ordinance. >> The housing market is interstate commerce The housing market is not interstate commerce. There may have been past Supreme Courts that inappropriately used the interstate commerce clause (for example the ruling that a farmer growing wheat on his farm in order to feed his cattle was interstate commerce), but the current Supreme Court will not inappropriately use the interstate commerce clause. Under the current Court, only interstate commerce will be considered as interstate commerce. >> Houston has no zoning rules It has ordinances, deed restrictions, and building codes instead. >> and is one of the most affordable major metros in the US The Houston metro area is 10,000 square miles of mostly flat land, with plenty more buildable land bordering the metro area. The cost of a house in that scenario is going to be close to the cost of construction.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  > The housing market is not interstate commerce. sigh >> Congress in fact relied on the Commerce Clause, together with the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as a principal basis for the original enactment, in 1968, of the Fair Housing Act. The legislative history of the original Act contains many references by its sponsors and supporters to both the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment as authority for its enactment. >> The Attorney General testified that "the housing business is substantially interstate and subject to the commerce clause" because of the interstate movement of building materials, mortgage funds, and advertising, as well as the interstate movement of workers and their families. I know the linked article is an amicus brief - but it was filed by the DOJ so it is the position of the United States. I suppose it could be re-litigated - the lord only knows with this Supreme Court - but I don't think it's at all unfair for me to rely on this thesis. The Federal Government has the power to regulate housing under the Commerce Clause. The whole reason the Fair Housing Act is binding is that housing is interstate commerce. Fundamentally if you believe the Fair Housing Act is enforceable, then you believe that housing is interstate commerce, which in turn means that you must agree the Federal Government can regulate housing. I'm not saying you have to like it or support it, just that it's pretty clearly established precedent. Respectfully, I will follow the opinion of the DOJ here. > The Houston metro area is 10,000 square miles of mostly flat land, with plenty more buildable land bordering the metro area. The cost of a house in that scenario is going to be close to the cost of construction. Yes that's what happens when supply meets or exceeds demand. It approaches the cost of construction. When demand exceeds supply prices tend to the highest level the market will bear. That's the crux of my argument. You know that for instance the SF Bay Area's average population density is 600 people per square mile. We're not exactly short of land out here. This isn't Singapore. And you know you can just build up, right, when not forbidden by onerous zoning rules? [1] https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-cases-documents-192 https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-ca...
singleshot_ 3y ago
Yes, zoning should absolutely be federalized. Until people from Mississippi can force land use policy on my urban real estate, I know they will never truly be satisfied.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

tivert 3y ago

> I will once again float that zoning should be federalized, and everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right. If you have a problem with what I want to put on my land, buy my land. I'm not responsible for your property value. That's unreasonable. What if I'm your neighbor and want to turn my land into a toxic waste dump and burn tires for heat and/or fun? I'm not responsible for your property value, right? Communities are actual things. Pretending like they're not to "solve" one problem just means you'll get other problems.

arcticbull 3y ago
> That's unreasonable. What if I'm your neighbor and want to turn my land into a toxic waste dumb and burn tires for heat and/or fun? I'm not responsible for your property value, right? There is plenty of prior art that draws exactly the right compromises. For example Houston as I mentioned, and Japan.
- tivert 3y ago
  >> That's unreasonable. What if I'm your neighbor and want to turn my land into a toxic waste dumb and burn tires for heat and/or fun? I'm not responsible for your property value, right? > Zoning should be residential, commercial and industrial. Whatever happened to "everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right. If you have a problem with what I want to put on my land, buy my land. I'm not responsible for your property value." It seems like that got abandoned fast.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    > Whatever happened to "everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right?" An obviously tortured reading of what I was arguing for, so I edited it for clarity. Hope that helps. I suspect however that you'd find burning tires in an urban area to run afoul not of zoning rules but of the EPA.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > An obviously tortured reading of what I was arguing for, so I edited it for clarity. Hope that helps. By "tortured reading" do you mean "literal and straightforward" reading?
      - arcticbull 3y ago
        What is it that has you so married to restricting what other people can do on their property? Especially to the extent that you would engage in bad faith arguments? Are you trying to keep people out of your neighborhood, or are you trying to keep housing unaffordable? Have you decided that, entirely arbitrarily, the neighborhood is good now and should never change? Generally curious as to your animus. Because again the land uses you suggested aren't a function of zoning rules at all. They're a straw man.
epistasis 3y ago
If somebody considers housing to be toxic waste, may I suggest that they live somewhere that doesn't have huge demand? Its fundamentally greedy and unfair to deny lots of people something they would like, without just compensation to all the people that would like to live in Hawaii (or any other high demand area) Land should be for all, not for the few. If you want a lot of land, there's a lot of it out there, you just need to go where there are few people. If you want a lot of land where other people also want a lot of land, you need to pay everybody else for that excessive consumption.

votepaunchy 3y ago

> The housing market is interstate commerce. If the housing market was interstate commerce, then it could not be regulated by state or local governments, as that power is reserved to the Congress.

arcticbull 3y ago
The power to regulate interstate markets doesn't take the ability of local governments to enact legislation away - it gives the federal government supremacy. It gives the federal government the authority to enact regulation when local laws unnecessarily impede interstate commerce. You'll be happy to know that in Russell v. United States, 471 U.S. 858 (1985) the Supreme Court affirmed the interstate nature of the housing rental market. [1] The New York State Bar Association further makes a case for the Dormant Commerce Clause in zoning. [2] And of course, the DOJ maintains that the Commerce Clause was key to enacting the Fair Housing Act in this amicus brief in 2015. [3] There's a ton of explanation in both the body and in the associated footnotes. [1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/471/858.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/471/858.h... [2] https://nysba.org/how-the-dormant-commerce-clause-can-fight-zoning-discrimination/ https://nysba.org/how-the-dormant-commerce-clause-can-fight-... [3] https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-cases-documents-192 https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-ca...

rufus_foreman 3y ago

>> The federal government has the authority to invalidate local city council ordinances - for instance the FCC invalidated Chicago rules around satellite dishes The fact that the federal government had the authority to invalidate a specific local ordinance does not mean that the federal government has the authority to invalidate any local ordinance. >> The housing market is interstate commerce The housing market is not interstate commerce. There may have been past Supreme Courts that inappropriately used the interstate commerce clause (for example the ruling that a farmer growing wheat on his farm in order to feed his cattle was interstate commerce), but the current Supreme Court will not inappropriately use the interstate commerce clause. Under the current Court, only interstate commerce will be considered as interstate commerce. >> Houston has no zoning rules It has ordinances, deed restrictions, and building codes instead. >> and is one of the most affordable major metros in the US The Houston metro area is 10,000 square miles of mostly flat land, with plenty more buildable land bordering the metro area. The cost of a house in that scenario is going to be close to the cost of construction.

arcticbull 3y ago
> The housing market is not interstate commerce. sigh >> Congress in fact relied on the Commerce Clause, together with the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as a principal basis for the original enactment, in 1968, of the Fair Housing Act. The legislative history of the original Act contains many references by its sponsors and supporters to both the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment as authority for its enactment. >> The Attorney General testified that "the housing business is substantially interstate and subject to the commerce clause" because of the interstate movement of building materials, mortgage funds, and advertising, as well as the interstate movement of workers and their families. I know the linked article is an amicus brief - but it was filed by the DOJ so it is the position of the United States. I suppose it could be re-litigated - the lord only knows with this Supreme Court - but I don't think it's at all unfair for me to rely on this thesis. The Federal Government has the power to regulate housing under the Commerce Clause. The whole reason the Fair Housing Act is binding is that housing is interstate commerce. Fundamentally if you believe the Fair Housing Act is enforceable, then you believe that housing is interstate commerce, which in turn means that you must agree the Federal Government can regulate housing. I'm not saying you have to like it or support it, just that it's pretty clearly established precedent. Respectfully, I will follow the opinion of the DOJ here. > The Houston metro area is 10,000 square miles of mostly flat land, with plenty more buildable land bordering the metro area. The cost of a house in that scenario is going to be close to the cost of construction. Yes that's what happens when supply meets or exceeds demand. It approaches the cost of construction. When demand exceeds supply prices tend to the highest level the market will bear. That's the crux of my argument. You know that for instance the SF Bay Area's average population density is 600 people per square mile. We're not exactly short of land out here. This isn't Singapore. And you know you can just build up, right, when not forbidden by onerous zoning rules? [1] https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-cases-documents-192 https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-ca...

singleshot_ 3y ago

Yes, zoning should absolutely be federalized. Until people from Mississippi can force land use policy on my urban real estate, I know they will never truly be satisfied.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]