Why is the government involved in whether I can run a business from my home? Why is the government responsible for controlling where businesses might be located instead of the free market controlling that aspect more dynamically?
The de facto justification is indirect negative externalities exist like traffic congestion. Also known as F U I got mine.
Plopping down a subdivisions in a sleepy county can quickly overwhelm local school systems, sewage treatment, etc. Even just 7% annual growth doubles the local population every decade which requires incredible and increasing investments in infrastructure. Slowing that down slightly is hardly unreasonable and it can help avoid expensive and damaging boom / bust cycles.
I would still be skeptical of this since I've learned the racial views of many famous environmental figures (like John Miur) and the various organizations brought up in their wake. Obviously correlation != causation but check out the trajectories and intersection between the usage of "segregationist" and "environmentalist" in American English publications. They cross over right around the time of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1973):
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gentrification...
(Sorry for gross huge URL. You might have to focus the input box and hit Enter to see the results. Here's a screenshot otherwise: https://i.imgur.com/kP8ugvH.png )
The only way they get there is when housing is built up around them.
If you're too lazy to fire up Google maps before you buy well then that's on you.
Though you can move just outside town if you want chickens I guess.
I found many pieces of it - some of which were directly related to lack of zoning - to be aesthetic disasters.
There seems to be a conception that support of zoning, and things like it, need be grounded in some scientific public-good maximalism that probably doesn't exist.
I don't feel bound by that at all.
The reason I am against ad-hoc liquor stores being run from a walled in front porch of a single-family home converted (badly) to a duplex[1] is because I dislike them aesthetically.
[1] Houston, circa 1999.
The general idea is that city planners prioritize aesthetics over their residents being able to afford housing.
I keep wondering: How soon until someone proposes that building codes drive up housing prices and that code enforcement unfairly impacts PoC ?
It seems outlandish but ... part of me thinks it's just a matter of time.
But fourplexes? Not a chance.
This reasoning is exactly why I stopped being a libertarian, the free market has no recourse mechanisms for actors making peoples lives worse.
Nuisance law is a recourse mechanism in the case you point out, and is included in any reasonable notion of "free market". (In the more radical notions of libertarianism, you and the other guy would simply submit the dispute to a mutually-trusted outside arbitrator, with a voluntary agreement to abide by the arbitrator's ruling.)
Government policy and the marketplace aren't the exclusive ways of managing relationships between people.
Annnnd from the perspective of the person you’re complaining about this is an incentive for libertarianism, you are making their life worse by enacting arbitrary rules that make you happy and enforcing those rules with violence.
And it could be that some other inane government rule made it so that they had to park trucks where they did in the first place.