Hacker News Reader

"I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car, and that I am some sort of evil person for having one."

In the US, it's basically illegal to build any kind of development that doesn't require a car or two. Some exceptions, like Kentlands in MD, or Stapleton in Denver, require developers to prepare plans in advance, lobby for variances to zoning and parking requirements. It's also harder to get financing for non-standard projects. All this means that unless you're building a standard subdivision, an office park, or a strip mall, you're at a competitive disadvantage and incur higher costs and risks.

Let there be no illusion that the "market" provided the built environment we have.

I am saddened that I can only give this comment one upvote.

In fact, in most US cities, it is illegal to build high density development like the kind that already exists in those cities.

> It's also harder to get financing for non-standard projects.

That's the market speaking.

I don't think so. A "standard" project is one that complies with zoning regulations and keeps the nutty neighbors happy (which often requires concessions far beyond zoning limits). So we're not talking about market control, we're talking about government policy. Governments set zoning rules. Not markets. Just because markets are involved, doesn't mean that a phenomena is fundamentally a product of a free market.

We're only talking about govt wrt zoning.

A "non-standard project" that is seeking funding by definition meets the relevant zoning because no one borrows money to build something that zoning forbids.

When a lender says offers different terms for different zoning-legal projects, that's the market.

A "non-standard project" that is seeking funding by definition meets the relevant zoning because no one borrows money to build something that zoning forbids.

This is incorrect. Developers seek variances for various zoning restrictions all the time. And doing so effects financing decisions because a project that requires variances may face substantial delays.

> This is incorrect. Developers seek variances for various zoning restrictions all the time.

Variances are part of the zoning process.

> And doing so effects financing decisions because a project that requires variances may face substantial delays.

No one lends construction money before zoning is satisfied, regardless of how it's satisfied.

You seem to disagree, so how about an example of a lender providing construction money before there was good reason to believe that construction would be allowed.

Yes, lenders may think that some projects are more likely to be approved and the reasons for approval may be political, but that just means that lenders consider the outcome of political processes, not that they're making decisions for political reasons.

Absent something like CRA, lending decisions are based on predicted return on investment. Can the borrowers make the payments? The greater the risk, the higher the interest rate.

People like like Cool Town Studios (http://www.cooltownstudios.com/) are trying to make financing for non-standard financings easier. But at this point it's like trying to get money for a startup pre-YC, or even pre-VC.

It's a broken, overly conservative market dominated by huge scale investors that want to invest tens of millions at a time. Imagine if instead of dealing with VCs, you had to go straight to LPs and have them give you money for a project.

> It's a broken, overly conservative market dominated by huge scale investors that want to invest tens of millions at a time. Imagine if instead of dealing with VCs, you had to go straight to LPs and have them give you money for a project.

Interestingly enough, most "venture funding" is not through VCs - it's direct from "the money".

In any event, banks serve many of the same functions as VCs. Both "borrow" money from one set of people and based on agreed-upon criteria, "lend" it to others.

I spent ten years as a real estate broker and developer. The market wants improvement to zoning codes to reflect current (post 1955) sensibilities. Unfortuneately archaic zoning codes and change-fearing planning and zoning commissions prevent most progressive projects from ever getting off the ground.

There are always exceptions to the rule in some localities...but as a nation... the U.S. is being held back by laws written 50 years ago. Mandatory setbacks (20 ft between buildings, mandatory front and rear yards, minimum number of parking spaces...all practices counterintuitive to effective land use.

> Mandatory setbacks (20 ft between buildings, mandatory front and rear yards, minimum number of parking spaces...all practices counterintuitive to effective land use.

It depends on your definition of "effective". Folks pay more for houses with 20 ft set backs than they're willing to pay for 10 ft set backs. Folks pay more for single-family detached than they're willing to pay for townhouses. And so on.

> I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car, and that I am some sort of evil person for having one.

Not everybody thinks about you when choosing the people they want to live with. You argue like a conservative asshole berating a bunch of hippies for choosing their own way of life.

> What I'm saying : there should be no laws against this type of thing, and no laws saying you should do it. Entirely personal choice all round.

That is entirely upto the people living in those subuebs. If they decide that you should drive your car around rather than through their suburb, then I don't see how it violates your personal freedom. Next you will be bitching about congestion charges.

You missed my point.

If you read my comment, I think it's a good idea. I just don't want legislation either for or against the idea. If people want to live in car-less suburbs, I support that. I don't support being forced to live in a car-less suburb, that's all.

  > I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car,
  > and that I am some sort of evil person for having one.

I am not saying you are a bad person, but giving a car to everyone - like we do right now - is a terrible idea.

I'm hoping for legislation that will ban private persons from buying cars. No one (...) needs half a ton of metal and 70PS to move his 70kg ass.

I'm paraphrasing Jay Leno who was being interviewed on a car show, so take this with the appropriate number of grains of salt, but ...

I'd like to see cars go the way of the horse. Horses used to be used for transportation, everybody had one, and they were abused to a huge degree. Then cars came along, and now horses are kept just by enthusiasts who care for them a great deal and go riding for fun every once in a while.

I think the best of both worlds would be for [insert your car alternative of choice here] to develop enough to replace the car for commuting and errands, with just a few thousand cars for people who like to drive them around tracks or through the countryside every once in a while.

It sounds like Jay Leno would like people like Jay Leno to continue to be able to drive without all those other drivers.

I find lots of strange laws (or just rules / contracts) much more acceptable locally, where you can choose to live in this community or not --- than would be acceptable on a larger scale like a nation.