undefined | Better HN

0 pointsakira25012y ago0 comments

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?

0 comments

VintageCool2y ago

https://indyweek.com/news/opinions/op-ed-the-purpose-of-zoni...

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.

tomcar2882y 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.

screye2y 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.

ProfessorLayton2y 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)

sd-response2y 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-tw...

[1] https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/vault/micro-housing

[2] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/once-curbe...

eikenberry2y 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?

ejb9992y 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?

dghlsakjg2y 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.

joshlemer2y 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.

foxyv2y 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...

And LA: https://www.dailynews.com/2024/01/26/13-years-in-federal-pri...

And Dallas: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/dallas-city-council-mem...

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse