Hacker News Reader

Comment by anon291 | Hacker News Reader

At the end of the day, zoning should be mostly illegal, except for egregious abuses of public externalities, or industries with major externalities (and even then it should be handled as a special process). Zoning is a terrible infringement upon property rights.

EDIT: also most gov't regulations should be illegal and we should have a severe reigning in of government in these cases. All of a sudden it seems like more 'progressive' people have woken up to the dangers of overregulation, which is great, but it's a bit too little too late, and no one actually votes for it when push comes to shove I've noticed.

View on HN

Life would be a lot easier if we could just focus on identifying bad regulation and making it good (which sometimes means less restrictive) instead of a philosophical war against the idea of regulation. Its needlessly distracting to put the idea of regulation itself into center stage at every turn.

Particularly if even the people philosophically arguing that all regulation is bad, actually support some roles for government like enforcing property ownership, but just pretend they don't because their whole philosphy dissolves if they admit that.

I have no philosophical war against regulation. I never called to get rid of all regulation. I just said most is bad and should be scrapped. That is true. Replacing the bad with good first involves removing the bad. I don't understand why this is controversial. Why is it that we cannot have an honest discussion about this unless one uses the proper code words?

The problem is that too many people get caught up believing that intent = effect.

So when you suggest that a regulation’s (or even laws) effect might be bad, people tend to assume you meant the intent was bad too. So you have to go through all sorts of linguistic gymnastics so they don’t feel their “good” intentions were being attacked.

Yeah, I had this difficulty with Prop 47 in California (people kept asking me why I didn't want to decriminalize non-violent crimes [1]) or measure 110 in Oregon [2]. It's difficult because basically if you daresay anything, they'll classify you as a member of the 'other' party which means you're a kook who deserves scorn, doxxing, threats (yes, all happened to me, very worrisome, almost had to move).

[1] They didn't know it included certain sex crimes and theft with a weapon

[2] They had faith the state government would be able to set up a magic mental health care system in 90 days after unemployment checks were delayed for almost four months and in a state where DMV regularly experiences outages that last weeks. I mean... maybe the measure is fine, but we'll never know as there's no possible way it was ever going to be implemented the way they sold it to us, and recognizing that is not some indictment of anyone who supports this measure. But alas, I'm just a curmudgeon.

There is definitely an assumption among some that anything the government would do or a specific party would generally support is for the greater good or well thought out. Call it skepticism, pessimism, or realism, but my first assumption is just about anything a political group, faction, or government wants to do will likely result in a degree of harm.

True except every regulation is good for someone.

>also most gov't regulations should be illegal and we should have a severe reigning in of government in these cases

When will people learn that the existence of bad regulation does not mean all regulation is bad? The answer to bad regulation is good regulation and not no regulation. Just look at the crypto industry. A lot of momentum for crypto came out of frustration with the bad regulation which helped cause the 2008 financial crisis. Fast forward a decade plus and we now we have come to accept that scams and incompetence that are much more malicious and severe are a regular part of that industry because no one wanted any regulation. Is that a win for the general public?

I Didn't say all regulation is bad... just most. Most doesn't imply all...

If we are being pedantic about the exact choice of words, that isn't what you said either. You said "most gov't regulations should be illegal" which is more extreme than just saying "most regulation is bad".

Sure, and I stand by that. Government regulation should be limited in its scope and we should have laws that mandate how they are created. For example here are some ideas.

1. regulations should be made at the lowest level of government for which it's effective. If states make a regulation that cannot be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level, it should be struck down. This would get rid of a lot of contentious federal regulation which currently polarizes the country needlessly.

2. Regulations should not infringe upon property rights such as the right to build on your property as you please. There's a major differenc between 'this is an eyesore' and 'this produces toxic waste that leaks onto my property'. The former should not be a regulation the government can legally make. The latter can because it impedes property rights of others.

I can go on.

These are the sort of meta-regulations I think we should have. Honestly, just these two would render many existing regulations already illegal, and they would have to be re-implemented at a more appropriate level of government or scrapped altogether for something different (like a land-use process where instead of zoning, certain lists of activities or activities that the developer should reasonably expect to cause pollution to to other properties require special authorization).

But again to be pedantic, my initial response is quite clear that not all regulation should be illegal. If I meant that I would have said 'all regulation should be illegal'. So let's stop putting words in each other's mouths and pretending we have the high ground.

>If states make a regulation that cannot be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level, it should be struck down.

This clarifies your objection to my "all" comment because it is the same type of thinking to which I was referring. You are stating that regulation is assumed to be bad until proven otherwise. Maybe I should have put an "unless proven otherwise" disclaimer after "all regulation is bad" in my original comment, I will grant you that. But I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't dispute something that was proven to be true. Until you have that proof, you are seemingly assuming all regulation is bad.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I do not think all regulation is bad until proven otherwise.

I said:

> >If states make a regulation that cannot be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level, it should be struck down.

So if you have a good regulation that ought to be made, but made it in a terrible way, then that good regulation is bad, because it's made incorrectly. This does not mean every regulation is presumed bad. Just that regulation should be questioned.

What is the alternative? We accept all regulation without any criteria as to whether it's effective, correctly made, or minimal in scope? Is that really the level of apathy I have to descend to in order to not be accused of calling all regulation 'bad'? That's a bit much.

>>>If states make a regulation that cannot be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level, it should be struck down.

I propose we create federal legislation that food companies need to label their food with their exact ingredients. According to this comment, this regulation will be struck down until it can "be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the [federal] level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level". How is "it should be struck down" different than "it is bad"? Because I read it as you saying this regulation is bad until I can prove it is necessary to happen at the federal level.

>regulation should be questioned... What is the alternative? We accept all regulation without any criteria as to whether it's effective, correctly made, or minimal in scope?

I'm not arguing that regulation needs to go unquestioned. I said in my first comment that there is both good and bad regulation. The alternative approach is that we don't have some universal rule like you are suggesting and instead judge regulation on a case by case basis. Like I said in my first comment, the answer to bad regulation is good regulation. Your stance still seems to that the answer to bad regulation is no regulation.

> I propose we create federal legislation that food companies need to label their food with their exact ingredients. According to this comment, this regulation will be struck down until it can "be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level". You are saying this regulation is bad until I can prove it is necessary to happen at the federal level. How is "it should be struck down" different than "it is bad"?

Okay, suppose such legislation is created at the federal level. Now, someone disagrees, and sues. The courts will examine the question if the legislation could achieve the same purpose if enacted on the state level. Since food can be imported, my guess would be imported foods could be regulated by the feds, since states don't handle importation processes.

On the other hand, foods produced and consumed in the same state would be up to state regulation. This would be good, since some states have very different food cultures (Louisiana, for example), and it's not really clear to me why voters in Minnesota should have a say in how those local foods are produced and consumed.

As for food commerce between states, I'm not sure, I would think that states could handle that via inter-state compacts and trade agreements.

In this particular case, I don't think counties or municipalities would be a good level of government, since most food is not produced and consumed in the same city or county.

> judge regulation on a case by case basis

Oh so you agree with me? How can such regulation be 'judged on a case by case basis' without meta-regulations of the kind I mentioned? It seems to me that today, anything goes, and there's nothing you can do when such rules are enacted. Also, if such rules are being 'judged on a case by case basis' (presumably for each piece of legislation), then presumably you too judge each new regulation to be bad, since it is apparently in need of judgement (and presumably being made illegal if the judge decides so... or do you advocate judgement with no repercussions?). Honestly I'm very confused over why you disagree with me.

>On the other hand, foods produced and consumed in the same state would be up to state regulation. This would be good, since some states have very different food cultures (Louisiana, for example), and it's not really clear to me why voters in Minnesota should have a say in how those local foods are produced and consumed.

But nothing I said in my comment related to "different food cultures" any more than regulation to not put poison in food. There are some standards that we can all agree on and we might as well define those standards at the highest level they are applicable since we all agree on them.

>Oh so you agree with me? How can such regulation be 'judged on a case by case basis' without meta-regulations of the kind I mentioned? It seems to me that today, anything goes, and there's nothing you can do when such rules are enacted. Also, if such rules are being 'judged on a case by case basis' (presumably for each piece of legislation), then presumably you too judge each new regulation to be bad, since it is apparently in need of judgement (and presumably being made illegal if the judge decides so... or do you advocate judgement with no repercussions?). Honestly I'm very confused over why you disagree with me.

Do you know one of the main differences between criminal trials and civil trials? Criminal trials grant the defendant innocence until proven guilty while civil trials do not grant this presumption of innocence and instead rely on a preponderance of the evidence.

You are basically asking for a presumption of guilt for regulation. I am saying there should be no assumptions. Another way to restate that presumption of guilt would be to say "all regulation is bad until proven otherwise".

> There are some standards that we can all agree on and we might as well define those standards at the highest level they are applicable since we all agree on them.

So in my experience as a right-leaning person who lives in a lot of left-leaning areas (due to career trajectory and family, blah blah blah), my experience with statements like this is that these regulations are things that 'we' all agree on where 'we' means 'people just like me'. Actually, there are quite obviously to me a lot of regulations in this country where we don't all agree on, and it would be much better for these to be left to local municipalities, counties, or states.

It is too common that both parties attempt to enact legislation 'we' all agree on at the federal level, and cause the other side to get upset and this just makes polarization worse.

> Do you know one of the main differences between criminal trials and civil trials? Criminal trials grant the defendant innocence until proven guilty while civil trials do not grant this presumption of innocence and instead rely on a preponderance of the evidence.

Oh yes, government should always be presumed guilty, because governments have no innate right to exist (unlike humans) and governments have absolutely no right to be free of coercion (voting is the ultimate form of coercion). Since governments derive their right to exist solely from the consent of the governed, yes, a government should be scrutinized. Governments are even more subject to scrutiny than private organizations who derive their right to exist from the human rights of the individual members [1]. If enough members of a government's population decide to abolish it, then the government cannot claim some right to exist.

So yes, all government actions ought to be scrutinized immediately. There is no reason to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Such things are reserved for actual people.

> You are basically asking for a presumption of guilt for regulation. I am saying there should be no assumptions. Another way to restate that presumption of guilt would be to say "all regulation is bad until proven otherwise".

Regulations aren't people. People are. Of course regulations should be presumed guilty. Regulations have impacts on actual people, whereas people cannot meaningfully 'harm' enacted regulation (what does that even mean?).

[1] of course, this doesn't really matter as private orgs can't really 'regulate'.

You're basically saying that LLC shouldn't exist ('private entities derive their rights from human members').

And that they shouldn't really have the benefit of the doubt.

I know i don't totally agree with that but i used too, and i found it funny.

Also, private orgs do regulate, it's called lobbying, and it's a feature of our best power distribution system yet (capitalism) where power is derived from wealth and not bloodline or other extremely stupid stuff.

You are basically an anarchist to me. I mean, all ancaps/Ayn Rand fans are once they understand positive and negative freedom/rights and push their reasonning on power structure far enough.

I'm sadly not an anarchist anymore, but 'autonomy is in our hearts' is a great way of reading about an existing society with humans in the center without regulations and basing most things on common decency. There is also a lot of analytical philosophy papers on this particular subject of inherent right (or freedom), mostly from your country.

You've reviewed ALL regulations? Must have taken a while

Zoning makes sense in some cases. I might not want someone to build factory on a residential street for example. But we need more units being built. I don't think it really matters if they're affordable or not, rental or for purchase. Add a million or so units to any city and it should sort itself out I'd think.

It really depends on the kind of factory. I live in a residential neighborhood with 'factories' right down the street. The factories produce small batch food, artisanal crafts, etc (there's a lovely chocolate factory 10 blocks away). Many sell to large audiences, or have national brands. I don't see what the big deal is at all. The neighborhood is lovely. It is more walkable than 95% of American neighborhoods. It's a historic neighborhood with lovely trees, beautiful architecture, and lovely ornamental details. It is highly priced and inhabited by well-to-do people. There is a natural limit on factory growth (namely lack of space). If a company outgrows its space, it'll have to move somewhere more appropriate and let a smaller growing business occupy its space.

Why fear such factories?

Of course, factories with toxic waste and pollution? Yes those should be built far away from people, but actually, my parents, who live in the suburbs are closer to that sort of thing than I am even though there spot feels more 'open' due to zoning.

While I agree with your example, I think we can do better than we do now. Having strictly residential zoning, then strictly commercial zoning, increases reliance on driving everywhere.

My first house had very interesting/interspersed zoning. Basically, businesses lined the main street, then houses were built immediately behind them all. I didn't have a neighbor behind me, it was a giant flower warehouse. It felt so private. It was amazing being able to have a house with a big yard, AND be able to walk anywhere. Vet, immediate care center, several restaurants, gas station, and much more all in short walking distance. I think the only thing I had to drive for was grocery and clothes shopping.

Everywhere I've lived since seem to put residences by themselves, far from any business. I can't stand it, and wish I could find something like my old setup again.

Yup, this is my neighborhood. I can walk down to a corner store gas station. Walk a bit further to a grocery store. Walk to a bakery, walk to a taco shop. I had a back spasm recently and my wife was out with the kids in our car, and I walked to urgent care. Was no big deal at all. Just lovely. On top of the restaurants and services that line the 'big street' next to me, there are several manufacturers of goods. Chocolate shops, woodcrafters, bakeries, some crafty things, textile manufacturer, even a noodle maker. Perfectly lovely neighborhood. Better than 99% I've lived in.

Replace your flower warehouse with a metal shop. Welding, metal cutting/bending etc. Sure sounds like a fun place to live.

There's a reason people generally prefer not to live next to businesses. And despite a lot of rhetoric about how cities are the future, there's an awful lot of people who prefer suburbs.

A childhood friend lived next to a metal working shop as you suggest being so terrible.

Well, maybe it was noisy at times. On the other hand, one hole in the fence and hoo boy did we pilfer scrap and offcuts enough to build forts that would have put Helms Deep to shame.

I don't care if people who prefer suburbs choose go live in them, but I would like them to stop imposing their preferences on the rest of us. If someone wants to live next to a metal shop, why should anyone else stop them? If living next to a metal shop sucks, wouldn't that be reflected in the rental price? Maybe it's worth it. Maybe someone who's deaf or hard of hearing will move in, and feel like they're getting a great deal. Who knows? By regulating such things out of existence, the zoning code pretends it knows better than all the rest of us, but it really cannot.

I used to live in an apartment above a makerspace, and that was pretty great.

Lived in a suburb a plot away from such shop, at least I think it was one as there were regularly metal shawings outside. Never any issue with noise or anything.

Yeah I live in a city and don't own a car. Mixed commercial/residential is fine usually. Noise from machinery and stuff should be watched though. You might not want an outdoor EDM club in your backyard. A flower warehouse seems fine!

It’s a bit amusing that you noted the gas station as being within walking distance.

LOL yeah, the irony isn't lost on me. I guess I meant to paint it more as a place to grab snacks, drinks, foods, medicines, etc. Not the whole gasoline part :).

The prospective factory owner doesn't want to locate their facility on a residential street either; there are no attractive amenities there. There's inadequate power, expensive waste disposal, inconvenient shipping, and no access to similar facilities.

Zoning wasn't invented to protect residential neighborhoods from factories, it was devised to protect mansions from apartment buildings.

https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801479878/zone...

Why would someone build a factory where housing will doubtless have better returns sooner?

Japan’s maximum nuisance zoning seems more sensible to me than either our status quo and 0 zoning.

why do you think 'housing will doubtless have better returns'? If that was the case, then there would be zero factories.

If housing already exists in a place there’s probably demand there and existing infrastructure suitable for residential use.

A factory will need access to wider enough roads, a highway/railhead/port, high voltage power lines/gas lines, skilled labor, and so on. A residential area probably isn’t a suitable site along those lines. I’m sure exception exist.

That said I like the idea of max nuisance zoning, as I mentioned.

My city is mostly low rise, but there is one area 'the business district' where there are exclusively 10+ storey buildings being built. The funny thing is that this used to be an area full of traditional houses (50+ years old), and some plots still are traditional houses. So when walking down the street you have office building, traditional house, office building, car park, traditional house, high rise apartment. 15 years ago before the first office buildings were built this was a bit of a slum area, and some houses are still poorly maintained.

I'm sure at first the residents complained big about this, but now the value of their land has skyrocketed for two reasons:

a) Developers want to buy their houses and build more office blocks and apartments

b) Wealthy individuals want to buy their houses so they can live within walking distance of their office

> Zoning makes sense

I don’t want to live next to a factory, nightclub, power plant, airport, munitions depot, gas station, homeless shelter, drug rehab clinic, massage parlor

And that’s fine if you do - I’ll just self segment into the zoned neighborhoods

Op did call out exceptions for “egregious externalities.”

A factory could reasonably be considered to have egregious externalities.

But filtering out egregious externalities is… “zoning” so their logic seems circular.

Doesn't seem circular to me, they are against current zoning because it goes beyond what they consider "egregious". Lighter zoning that only dictated limits for sound levels and chemicals used would probably fit their definition of good zoning.

Limits like 'no metal dumps within 1000 feet of residential areas' are fine. They're not zoning, as no pre-existing zone is set up. According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning), zoning is when a city divides land up into zones and then dictates use. Limits like these are just externality captures. They're good and necessary for good urban life.

As an example, I was going to buy land in a rural town to develop into a nice little mini tiny home resort. It was going to be super cute. However, the zoning meant I couldn't do it. Not because there wasn't something just like it next door (like other resorts). No, just beacuse the letter next to the property in the registry wasn't the right one, and changing it would be a nightmare. Why? As long as I'm not dumping heavy metals onto neighbor's property, the water, or the air, why do these letters hold so much sway? Exactly why do we need 'recreational-only' property right next to an existing vacation business? It only serves to entrench existing competition, and make new ventures more difficult.

Semantic wank aside; it’s not really up to one poster on HN to dictate what is and is not acceptable within a community.

Satisfying their definition is not an obligation.

"Zoning" is fine.

The problem is that the primary purpose for US "zoning" was discrimination.

"Zoning" in Japan, for example, is different. It sets things like minimum acceptable noise levels, emissions, traffic flows, etc. Within that, everything is allowed.

Want to put a house in the middle of a commercial area? Sure, fine. But then you don't get to complain about the noise. Want to put a commercial building in a residential area? Sure, but you will get shut down if you make too much noise or create too much traffic.

I've advocated in the past for noise based zoning and it was, to my surprise in HN pretty well upvoted. It's a great idea. I would offer too however that it should be noise and pollution. You can have a very quiet plastic melting factory killing a lot of people nearby.

Toxic waste and pollution is an example of an externality that absolutely should be regulated, but it's not necessary to do that via zoning. Just specify how much space such a factory must have to the nearest residential area in order to be built. That's not a zoning law. That's just a business usage law. Similar to how I can't make noise in my neighborhood past 10PM.

Thus why I mentioned "emissions".

As much as I love BBQ, if someone opened a restaurant and started smoking at 1AM everyday next to my house, I'd be pretty upset.

On the other hand, I probably wouldn't care if a couple of architects wanted to set up shop next to my house.

> "Zoning" in Japan, for example, is different. It sets things like minimum acceptable noise levels, emissions, traffic flows, etc. Within that, everything is allowed.

Again... this is NOT zoning.

Zoning is taking a parcel of raw land, subdividing it, and then, before anything is built, deciding what goes where. You'll say 'this square is a restaurant, slap a C1 zoning on it', and 'this square is a house, so slap an R1 on it'. You'll do this en masse, without any regard for the actual inhabitants or businesses occupying this district.

Things like setting minimum noise levels, street sizes, etc, are part of permitting. We can have a separate discussion here, but this is not 'zoning'.

Hard to image that working in the US even if the laws were to exist. I mostly see the loud commercial business acting with impunity. However, we are good at keeping the business from existing in the first place.

I agree, but for a different reason. Good zoning laws are what make some places such desirable areas to live. It's great city planning and maintenance that create the few great, walkable, urban areas we have in the US.

If we get rid of zoning then soon everywhere will be terrible, but at least everywhere will be equal. If we put property rights above all else we can reach a level of dystopia in our urban areas that will make them far less desirable, and as a result people will spread out more from the urban centers.

No it's not. I live in a 150 year old neighborhood built before zoning. It is an extremely desirably neighborhood. one of the most expensive in this city. It is lovely, desired, and expensive because everyone wants to live here.

It is zoning that has protected it. If it's 150 years old it's likely a historic district.

Hard disagree. The most walkable, desirable neighborhoods in America are the ones that could not be built under current regulations.

whats more likely, removing zoning regulations magically creates more low-income housing? or removing zoning regulations allows corporations to start building factories and stores in residential areas?

I live in a residential area with factories and stores. This area developed in a time before zoning

Two things.

1. By removing zoning regulation, it's actually smaller mom and pop shops who build factories and stores. Corporations can, but actually smaller businesses can move quicker and are thus able to buy the land in upcoming areas faster (likely because the owners live there). On the other hand, with zoning, large corporations are incentivized to own commercial space. Mom and pops don't want to, because if they purchase land for a factory, they don't know if the city will actually allow that or not, and can't afford the wait / lobbying. Only large companies can. So contrary to your contrived example of no zoning leading to large factories interspersed with housing, no zoning leads to lovely homes interspersed with small artisanal factories. I'll tell you... it's extremely pleasant to walk to the artisanal chocolate factory for a mid-day treat. I pity those that cannot because they're worried Nestle's going to plop a mega-factory in their neighborhood.

2. Removing zoning regulations will encourage rich local residents to build nice housing. This will be expensive housing. No one builds low-income housing because it's stupid. Why spend a bunch of money to rent for under-market rents. But, by expanding the luxury supply, you create under-market rents for old luxury supply that hasn't been updated. That's great.

What would be wrong with building stores? And would they build factories if land in other places would likely be cheaper and infrastructure from roads to power better?

do you really want a 7-11/gas station next to your house in quite residential neighborhood? I doubt it.

How about a strip club? how about a battery recycling company? how about a metal recycling plant? How about a bar that is open to 4AM and has lots of live concerts?

Zoning regulations exist for a reason - removing them will do ZERO to generate more low-income housing - if there was money to be made in building low-income housing, there would be plenty of low-income housing already.

I'm repeating myself but European cities like Edinburgh are really great in part due to the mix or apartments with pubs and shops near by or directly under flats. Obviously there's still planning required and there has been disputes with venues (with bad outcomes were a residential block was built beside an old music venue and it was forced to close due to noise). Overall though it makes the whole place very livable and walkable

I live two blocks from a 7/11 gas station in a very lovely, quiet neighborhood that is quieter than the suburban neighborhood I grew up in. This neighborhood developed pre-zoning.

Strip clubs should be wholesale illegal, but I digress. I suppose there is a Thai massage parler of dubious characcter in my neighborhood (recently started), but it'll soon be kicked out I imagine due to public pressure. It's not like no zoning means there's no neighborhood input.

Live concerts... ? Well that is against noise regulations and so while a bar can happily exist (in fact the best tiki bar in my state is located a few blocks away... lovely date night), it has to take effort to be quiet. This is good. Bars and pubs are integral to community cohesion.

There are two bars near me that throw concerts, but these are usually during the day and the neighbors are invited, and they give us free food and beer sometimes, so that's nice.

I honestly cannot understand the complaint.

I'm not advocating the removal of zoning for low-income housing. Removing zoning would build more lovely luxury housing, which is what we need more of. Low-income housing is just old luxury housing. All housing is luxury when it's built. No one build old housing. Why would you intentionally build something shitty?

1) 7-ll/gas station: Yes, that would be nice! 2) Strip club / bar / music venu: Yes, this would also be nice! As long as it adheres to noise ordinances and pays for an appropriate amount of security. 3) Heavy industry: no, but I think most reasonable people and even TFA would make the case that this is an acceptable use of zoning.

Zoning regulation exist for a reason but have gone way way too far in the favor of NIMBYs who like living in food/fun/transportation deserts.

> ) Heavy industry: no, but I think most reasonable people and even TFA would make the case that this is an acceptable use of zoning.

It's also a total non-concern. Reasonable regulation can get around this.

Here's a law that we can add today before we get rid of zoning.

1. Any business that knowingly engages in activity that leaks toxic materials, noise at night, vibrations, or other nuisances onto adjoining properties preventing neighborhing pre-existing property owners from enjoying their property, owes 200% punitive damages of any revenue derived from such activity or, if no revenue is derived, $1 million.

Easy... now no company will possibly build in an area with existing housing because they can face hefty damages. For example, a metal recycling company which deals with potentially hazardous waste can have its revenue turned into a loss if it builds near homes. On the other hand, since the regulation only applies to nuisances towards existing homeowners, no one will develop housing near such a metal recycling facility, because they know they will face nuisances and there's nothing they can do.

In fact, this is how it was done for many centuries.

Living next to rather busy intersection, I see no problems with most of those. A shop near to me would be nice, gas station would make things simpler. And what is wrong with strip clubs? Some sort of moral purity that only very very very annoying churches should be allowed? I would ban all of those for many kilometres from any housing. Horribly noisy and the traffic...

I have no moral objections to strip clubs, but the large amount of traffic, parking lot noise (of cars and humans), drunken, horny people doing drunken, horny people things (including yelling and fighting), typically late at night is probably incompatible with most people’s idea of quiet residential usage of land.

Factories require a lot of space. They don't like to build them on expensive residential plots. In cases where homes happen to be near factories, it's because the homes moved into the cheap exurban land after the factory had long been there.

As far as stores, I would welcome more convenient shopping options near to my residence.

>>Factories require a lot of space. They don't like to build them on expensive residential plots.

Not all factories require a lot of space, and not all residential plots are expensive.

The factories that require small amounts of space are joys to have in residential neighborhoods.

We have a chocolate factory, a noodle factory, and a commercial bakery nearby. These are our neighbors. They know the neighborhood kids. everyone gets yummy treats. Why would I possibly care?

Also, some of the people working in a factory probably would like a home reasonably near there. Thus factories can cause homes...

It's what is great about old cities like Edinburgh in Scotland, apartments with shops and pubs below or near by.

sure, but Edinburgh allows that type of zoning and has all kinds of rules around what can and can't be built - it didn't happen because Edinburgh removed all zoning regulations and they just hoped for the best which is what the OP was advocating.

No not at all. As I said above, regulations such as (X can't be built within N feet of Y) are fine for certain cases. These are not zoning.

Zoning is taking land that's not developed and slicing it up deciding where things should go. That is terrible. It's centralized planning. It is against every principle of freedom of families to choose where to live and to engage in commerce. It is the worst kind of socialism.

Actually the old town was built long before the planning office existed.

There is no "residential plots" without zoning. Just plots.

Yes but building a factory in a residential area would be prohibitively expensive. Way cheaper to snap up 100-300 acres on the outskirts of town.

Wait, what kind of stores? I love it when a smaller grocery or cafe is walkable from my home.

except if you remove zoning regulations, you no longer get to pick what stores get built or businesses move in...thats is the whole point. Maybe you would love a small boutique coffee-shop, but what if a strip joint that is open to 4AM moves in instead? Still OK with that? not if you are raising a family and care about the value of your home and safety of your neighborhood.

I think my response to that has two elements:

1. A strip joint would have economic incentives for an ideal location much like residential housing. It would likely benefit from a more economically active corridor rather than where a bunch of families raise kids. I've noticed this with adult shops when I lived in different suburbs of Vancouver.

2. Municipalities often have bylaws for when/how they can serve alcohol (eg: "last call") as well as noise levels. It strikes me that there are better regulations for ensuring these sorts of things rather than entirely stamping out small businesses to be near homes.

Like, I can understand not wanting to live next to a dive bar full of students on a Tuesday evening, but I think there's still a lot of room with liberalizing zoning to make more comfortable living spaces in North America. Japan's attitude to things makes a lot more sense to me [1], especially having lived there in a suburb nextdoor to a school.

[1] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

You could just make strip clubs illegal? or make them not legal within 100 feet of any children or household containing children, or any residential place. This is not something only zoning can handle.

I'm not advocating for no regulation just no zoning regulation. zoning regulation is saying 'here is some undeveloped land, instead of letting it develop organically with regulations, we're going to chop the land into pieces and assign what can and cannot be done with it.'

So, for example, take sex offenders. As it is they can't live within X feet of a school. If they live somewhere and a school is being built that puts them in violation of this rule, the sex offender has to move.

The same should be true of strip clubs / adult venues. They can exist, but they cannot exist within X feet of an existing home. Boom. Strip clubs won't be built in residential areas, homes won't be built near strip clubs (except for maybe homes for horny adults?), and also no zoning was involved.

Other than that... Yeah I would like if the taco shop down the street sold ramen and the chocolate shop sold turkish delight too, but alas, I mean... what're you going to do?

You'll have a sex toy store with a glory hole setup in the back.

You'll get a weed dispensary that is open all day and night.

You'll get a liquor store that has robberies every 3rd night.

We have example of other countries where this works better, or at least can look at to see what the results are and if they are better or not. We don't need to guess and hypothesize.

which countries have removed all zoning regulations?

Consider any neighborhood in the United States built before the 50s, like my own, and you will see the result of no zoning restrictions.

So as to which countries... our country. Most countries had no zoning until recently.

Lol come to Houston, we'll dispel you of your notions of low zoning regulations.

Most housing starts in the nation over the last 10 years, leader of "housing first" homeless solutions, amazingly low housing compared to the national average ...

Market urbanism works. Reducing excessive zoning works. Pushing back on NIMBYism works.

Even if zoning is outlawed, you still need planning and permitting.

It seems like the underground water and sewer pipes designed to water and take the waste of a neighborhood of 50 housing units with 100 bathrooms and 150 bedrooms wouldn’t handle the waste of 500 units with 750 bathrooms and 1500 bedrooms.

Okay, and that's totally reasonable. I didn't say no regulation. I just said less. And permits around sewage use are not zoning.

Zoning is like 'this parcel is R1' which means, despite the fact that it is the same size as the 'R2' parcel next door, it can only have one home per half acre instead of two because ... reasons.

“This neighborhood of 50 lots can serve a maximum of 150 bedrooms, which for fairness shall be allocated by right at 3 BRs per lot.” That sounds like R1 zoning in effect, though not exactly.

Well it can handle x number of bathrooms to be assigned to the lots based on people's bidding capacity.

Not about apportioning per lot 'per fairness'. Centralized planning for 'fairness' leads to perverse incentives.

Exactly. Once that bidding [for bedrooms, not bathrooms as that’s what drives sewer load] completes, the NIMBY’s have won. It’s a small inconvenience that they can’t add a legal bedroom in their attic, but at least the character of their neighborhood will be preserved.

For any established neighborhood, that will overwhelmingly have already happened.

It’s a hard problem, because it’s a people and money problem centered around the space they spend more time than anywhere else and more money than they’ve spent on any other thing.

Without zoning most yards would look like trash heaps.

In Berkeley we invented zoning, our zoning code is 15000 pages long, and there is a junked Volvo in every front yard.

Yeah my city is old enough to have neighborhoods that developed pre-zoning and those that developed post-zoning.

The post-zoning ones have trash heaps in yards, cars everywhere. The pre-zoning ones are expensive and manicured and obviously places where people have pride of living, despite there being no HOA. In fact several things HOAs would not allow (statues of unusual taste) exist too that are different but still nice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com