4 ms·

Solution: no more codes, zoning or regulations?

mothballed 1y ago
Or just apply the law equally? If you want to vote to increase regulation you agree it applies to your own house. If you're going to impose some $10,000 sprinkler system on the new guy you better be willing to renovate your house too.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  > Or just apply the law equally? Laws generally don’t apply retroactively; they don’t affect actions or events that occurred before the law was enacted due to principles rooted in fairness, legal stability, and practical governance. Non-retroactivity protects individuals from arbitrary government power, ensures trust in legal systems, and promotes economic and social stability. Without this principle, people could be penalized for past decisions made in good faith, eroding confidence in governance. > If you're going to impose some $10,000 sprinkler system on the new guy you better be willing to renovate your house too. What about home building codes affecting structure, e.g. against earthquakes?
  - mothballed 1y ago
    I don't follow. USA has made laws, say, that owning most explosives without a tax stamp is illegal (interestingly there is a law that this same stamp is $0 for other weapons which put people in a precarious position of facing 10+ years in prison for not paying a $0 tax). If you happen to already have one before they passed the law, the law still applies to you, just not before the law goes into effect. And they might not even give you the stamp even if you try to pay for it, if you don't pass a check. They won't charge you for the time you had it before the law went into effect. But they will charge you for owning it today without the tax stamp. (Now you can argue that law is unconstitutional, either from the takings clause or 2A but not because it is retroactive). That's kind of how I see the housing law. It would not be retroactive. It would be, that tomorrow owning a house without a sprinkler system would be illegal. And anyone who possess the house without one is violating the law. And if you don't agree with equal application to everyone, maybe the law should not be there in the first place.
    - andsoitis 1y ago
      > USA has made laws, say, that owning most explosives without a tax stamp is illegal I think you're referring to the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and its treatment of pre-existing explosive devices and destructive devices. It is an interesting example of how retroactive tax laws can affect previously legal property ownership. What I will say is that retroactive compliance requirements, while controversial, have generally been upheld by courts when applied to dangerous items affecting public safety. The explosives/tax stamp example demonstrates the tension between property rights, retroactive legislation, and public safety regulation. I don't know that your overall argument that all new building requirements should be applied to all existing properties. Not only would it be incredibly expensive (and probably having an even worse impact on people with less means), but also highly impractical in some instances. Does that make sense?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
CalRobert 1y ago
Certainly we could look at removing parking minimums and having less rigid zoning requirements. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to buy a coffee a walk away.
- rickydroll 1y ago
  What do you do if the local service is expensive/not very good, and a higher-quality option is a drive away? Do you prefer to live with crappy coffee, drive, or remain ignorant of better options? I'm in that situation right now. Local medical, restaurant, etc., are not very good, so I drive to the better option.
  - CalRobert 1y ago
    Usually I walk or cycle, because I dislike being around cars. Though sadly other people’s cars make the walk less pleasant.
hammock 1y ago
There are places like Maine with no zoning at all that still purport to have a housing crisis

Or just apply the law equally? If you want to vote to increase regulation you agree it applies to your own house. If you're going to impose some $10,000 sprinkler system on the new guy you better be willing to renovate your house too.

andsoitis 1y ago
> Or just apply the law equally? Laws generally don’t apply retroactively; they don’t affect actions or events that occurred before the law was enacted due to principles rooted in fairness, legal stability, and practical governance. Non-retroactivity protects individuals from arbitrary government power, ensures trust in legal systems, and promotes economic and social stability. Without this principle, people could be penalized for past decisions made in good faith, eroding confidence in governance. > If you're going to impose some $10,000 sprinkler system on the new guy you better be willing to renovate your house too. What about home building codes affecting structure, e.g. against earthquakes?
- mothballed 1y ago
  I don't follow. USA has made laws, say, that owning most explosives without a tax stamp is illegal (interestingly there is a law that this same stamp is $0 for other weapons which put people in a precarious position of facing 10+ years in prison for not paying a $0 tax). If you happen to already have one before they passed the law, the law still applies to you, just not before the law goes into effect. And they might not even give you the stamp even if you try to pay for it, if you don't pass a check. They won't charge you for the time you had it before the law went into effect. But they will charge you for owning it today without the tax stamp. (Now you can argue that law is unconstitutional, either from the takings clause or 2A but not because it is retroactive). That's kind of how I see the housing law. It would not be retroactive. It would be, that tomorrow owning a house without a sprinkler system would be illegal. And anyone who possess the house without one is violating the law. And if you don't agree with equal application to everyone, maybe the law should not be there in the first place.
  - andsoitis 1y ago
    > USA has made laws, say, that owning most explosives without a tax stamp is illegal I think you're referring to the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and its treatment of pre-existing explosive devices and destructive devices. It is an interesting example of how retroactive tax laws can affect previously legal property ownership. What I will say is that retroactive compliance requirements, while controversial, have generally been upheld by courts when applied to dangerous items affecting public safety. The explosives/tax stamp example demonstrates the tension between property rights, retroactive legislation, and public safety regulation. I don't know that your overall argument that all new building requirements should be applied to all existing properties. Not only would it be incredibly expensive (and probably having an even worse impact on people with less means), but also highly impractical in some instances. Does that make sense?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

CalRobert 1y ago

Certainly we could look at removing parking minimums and having less rigid zoning requirements. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to buy a coffee a walk away.

rickydroll 1y ago
What do you do if the local service is expensive/not very good, and a higher-quality option is a drive away? Do you prefer to live with crappy coffee, drive, or remain ignorant of better options? I'm in that situation right now. Local medical, restaurant, etc., are not very good, so I drive to the better option.
- CalRobert 1y ago
  Usually I walk or cycle, because I dislike being around cars. Though sadly other people’s cars make the walk less pleasant.

hammock 1y ago

There are places like Maine with no zoning at all that still purport to have a housing crisis