3 ms·
As one of those people, I'll clarify what they actually mean. Banning single-family homes in a vast majority of places is unnecessary. We need to ban exclusive
by Moomoomoo309 2y ago
As one of those people, I'll clarify what they actually mean. Banning single-family homes in a vast majority of places is unnecessary. We need to ban exclusive zoning for single-family homes and allow more dense housing within those zones. Want to build a single-family home in this theoretical zone? Go ahead! There's already a single-family home in that zone? Go ahead and buy it! Want to build a duplex or triplex? Currently, that wouldn't be allowed, but I think it should be. While we're at it, allow small corner stores, maybe a local pub or restaurant within the residential zone (emphasis on small here, I don't want a Walmart, but something the size of a bodega would be nice). Banning single-family housing in most places in the US is not necessary, economic incentives can determine what should be built. In the sticks, single family, in the town center, multi family or apartments. It's about having the freedom to build what you want, instead of forcing others' hand into single-family.
- josephcsible 2y ago> Banning single-family homes in a vast majority of places is unnecessary. > Banning single-family housing in most places in the US is not necessary Why do you qualify those statements with "most" and "a vast majority of"? Are there places where you do want to only allow high-density housing and totally ban single-family homes?
- Moomoomoo309 2y agoSure. Along transit corridors in a city would be a prime example. A single family home right next to a train station in a major city is stupid.