4 ms·

this is misinformation -- zoning is complex; basically it appears that "if zoning was ever used to separate minority neighborhoods" then it becomes "zoning is t

this is misinformation -- zoning is complex; basically it appears that "if zoning was ever used to separate minority neighborhoods" then it becomes "zoning is to prevent mixing of races" Let's be perfectly clear -- racial segregation is illegal in the USA; zoning has many implementations, many uses, many pressures and has baggage from historical situations

jeffbee 2y ago
We're discussing the origins. The origin of zoning clearly is racial segregation. It was an explicit response to the supreme court decision that outlawed racial covenants.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  The "zoning was done by the racists" along with "white flight was what destroyed the cities" is a dumb just-so narrative that the modern analogues of those people peddle so that they may distance their analogously poor sighted idea, movements, advocacy and politics from the mistakes that the The fundamental problem is that a large part of the population feels entitled to use government to micromanage things that are better off just not managed at all. It is none of your business what your neighbor puts on their property whether it's a homeless shelter or luxury apartment or a bodega or a fancy coffee shop. Real estate development is something market solves very well if people mind their own business and not other people's business.
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    That zoning was invented for racial exclusion is not hypothetical. These guys were on the record with their motivations.
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      The whole race thing is a distraction from the fact that the evil motivations to use the force of government to micromanage others for the most petty and frivolous of reasons (a category that "wrong skin color" would surely fall into) persist to this day.
      - jeffbee 2y ago
        I agree, because I hold vanilla libertarian beliefs about property rights. Unfortunately 99.12% of American libertarians are using the word to mean "selfish asshole" and as soon as you suggest that zoning is a government taking, they abandon the whole platform to defend zoning.
        Schiendelman 2y ago
        I'm with you, fellow .88%!
        potato3732842 2y ago
        >and as soon as you suggest that zoning is a government taking Not just zoning, but pretty much any government regulation. It boggles my mind that my state's equivalent of the EPA can just decree whatever their policy is, which has consequences on what they'll approve or won't, and this affects land values massively, and this doesn't legally get classified as a taking. >they abandon the whole platform to defend zoning. Which is a social problem that pretty much the entire western world suffers from these days. We don't shun, marginalize and otherwise punish people who are chronically two faced and lack principals (whatever those principals may be).
        Schiendelman 2y ago
        Instead of worrying about the people - make government pay for takings. It'd be a popular initiative (by which I mean capital-I Initiative, the process available in the Western states).
  - FeloniousHam 2y ago
    > It is none of your business what your neighbor puts on their property whether it's a homeless shelter or luxury apartment or a bodega or a fancy coffee shop. I appreciate your maximalist libertarian proposition, it's a fun exercise when you have no skin in the game. But a) housing is an investment as well as a lodging (and for most people their largest investment), and the value of that investment has everything to do with what's around it. 2) community is a real thing, even when it describes a group of people outside the usual members of sympathetic "intersectionalities". Everyone hates HOAs until they have to live next to my father, who kept three rusting "parts cars" in the driveway, piles of scrapwood in the yard, and let our dogs run all over the neighborhood.
giraffe_lady 2y ago
Zoning is in the history sweet spot: Recent enough that we have well-preserved records of its origins and use. But old enough that we have had time to study the effects in practice, regardless of original intent. Widespread enough that we can know any effects were not hidden variables from local geography or politics. But not universal, so we can compare the effects over time with and without it. That's all to say that it is well understood by people who study zoning in the US, of which there are plenty, that american racial dynamics are central in the history and use of zoning. It was not always used intentionally for segregation, but it was used for that very frequently over a long enough period of time that you can't consider it incidental to the practice. If you look to the early 20th century you can read the discussions people were having at the time about it: letters, and op-eds, and sometimes the ordinances themselves explicitly discuss the racial justifications. At the time racial segregation was well within the national overton window, they did not have a reason to hide to hide this motivation and so they did not. Later on it gets more complicated.

jeffbee 2y ago

We're discussing the origins. The origin of zoning clearly is racial segregation. It was an explicit response to the supreme court decision that outlawed racial covenants.

potato3732842 2y ago
The "zoning was done by the racists" along with "white flight was what destroyed the cities" is a dumb just-so narrative that the modern analogues of those people peddle so that they may distance their analogously poor sighted idea, movements, advocacy and politics from the mistakes that the The fundamental problem is that a large part of the population feels entitled to use government to micromanage things that are better off just not managed at all. It is none of your business what your neighbor puts on their property whether it's a homeless shelter or luxury apartment or a bodega or a fancy coffee shop. Real estate development is something market solves very well if people mind their own business and not other people's business.
- jeffbee 2y ago
  That zoning was invented for racial exclusion is not hypothetical. These guys were on the record with their motivations.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    The whole race thing is a distraction from the fact that the evil motivations to use the force of government to micromanage others for the most petty and frivolous of reasons (a category that "wrong skin color" would surely fall into) persist to this day.
    - jeffbee 2y ago
      I agree, because I hold vanilla libertarian beliefs about property rights. Unfortunately 99.12% of American libertarians are using the word to mean "selfish asshole" and as soon as you suggest that zoning is a government taking, they abandon the whole platform to defend zoning.
      - Schiendelman 2y ago
        I'm with you, fellow .88%!
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        >and as soon as you suggest that zoning is a government taking Not just zoning, but pretty much any government regulation. It boggles my mind that my state's equivalent of the EPA can just decree whatever their policy is, which has consequences on what they'll approve or won't, and this affects land values massively, and this doesn't legally get classified as a taking. >they abandon the whole platform to defend zoning. Which is a social problem that pretty much the entire western world suffers from these days. We don't shun, marginalize and otherwise punish people who are chronically two faced and lack principals (whatever those principals may be).
        Schiendelman 2y ago
        Instead of worrying about the people - make government pay for takings. It'd be a popular initiative (by which I mean capital-I Initiative, the process available in the Western states).
- FeloniousHam 2y ago
  > It is none of your business what your neighbor puts on their property whether it's a homeless shelter or luxury apartment or a bodega or a fancy coffee shop. I appreciate your maximalist libertarian proposition, it's a fun exercise when you have no skin in the game. But a) housing is an investment as well as a lodging (and for most people their largest investment), and the value of that investment has everything to do with what's around it. 2) community is a real thing, even when it describes a group of people outside the usual members of sympathetic "intersectionalities". Everyone hates HOAs until they have to live next to my father, who kept three rusting "parts cars" in the driveway, piles of scrapwood in the yard, and let our dogs run all over the neighborhood.

giraffe_lady 2y ago

Zoning is in the history sweet spot: Recent enough that we have well-preserved records of its origins and use. But old enough that we have had time to study the effects in practice, regardless of original intent. Widespread enough that we can know any effects were not hidden variables from local geography or politics. But not universal, so we can compare the effects over time with and without it. That's all to say that it is well understood by people who study zoning in the US, of which there are plenty, that american racial dynamics are central in the history and use of zoning. It was not always used intentionally for segregation, but it was used for that very frequently over a long enough period of time that you can't consider it incidental to the practice. If you look to the early 20th century you can read the discussions people were having at the time about it: letters, and op-eds, and sometimes the ordinances themselves explicitly discuss the racial justifications. At the time racial segregation was well within the national overton window, they did not have a reason to hide to hide this motivation and so they did not. Later on it gets more complicated.