It has nothing to do with race, it is economic disparity.
These laws exist, in some extent, to preserve the existing character of the area, for better or worse.
If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved (not necessarily to the same extent as Starchild in the article).
What you are suggesting, would lead to a lower quality of life for everyone, rich and poor. It would increase crime and decrease sanitation.
Do you own real property?
Zoning laws effectively turn into a tax on new comers to an area as things like "protected views", height restrictions just add to the cost of housing and running a business. Also these laws reduce density which makes having good public transportation harder and means you have to commute more to your job.
Permitting could be more streamlined, but should be required for any non cosmetic change as people try to cut corners to save $0.50 that can easily kill someone.
Disclaimer: I own property next to a large airport.
You also have to consider factors like industrial safety. For example, fertilizer[1] and pesticide[2] plants must be built a certain distance away from populated areas. There are, of course, many other industrial processes that also require a safety perimeter, but those are two that come immediately to mind.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explos...
It makes more sense to me to place the restrictions on the company/factory than the land itself, and building permits are already used by municipalities to negotiate location, etc.
You're agreeing with parent.
> What you are suggesting, would lead to a lower quality of life for everyone, rich and poor. It would increase crime and decrease sanitation.
How so?
I've been considering campaigning for Donald Trump. Given his background, I think he may be the most likely president to push for the sort of anti-Zoning laws I'm interested in. Perhaps you're right.
>"Do you own real property?"
Yes, I own a home in a wealthy suburb just outside of Philadelphia. I am well aware of the growing pains this would cause. But that can't stop us, this is a human rights issue, as far as I am concerned.
Also, since garbage storage would be a problem, I told my tenants they can just toss their garbage bags over the fence into your yard, and you would take care of it.
And since parking is now an issue with 15 additional cars, and friends visiting in their cars, I suggested they use your driveway or yard as parking.
Are you okay with that?
My tenants don't car about his property, and now he has to figure out which tenant violated his rights?
Yet, all these families now have legal rights and protections to live next door to him.
Call the police? Now you are taking a disproportionate amount of taxpayer resources to protect this specific individual's private property rights.
What if it keeps happening? Assign a special task-force to my specific rental property (the one next-door to the parent poster)?
But that is neither here nor there. My desire for comfort is nullified when it's being weighted against someone's human rights.
having said that, i don't think those existing homeowners would be any more willing to let white extended families move in and open up burger joints downstairs either.
Would you agree that the population density of an area has some correlation to the crime in that area?
He supports my right use the house I purchased (next door to his) in any way I see fit.
So, If I have 8 families living in a single family home, there may be some sanitation and parking problems.
It stands to reason there are probably many more people who want to move in to the area, but who aren't willing to be one of 8 families in a single family home.
So given the huge amount of pent-up demand, there must be some building laws in place keeping this specific city from growing upwards, and generating supply for this demand.
This is probably a building limits problem.