In the US zoning is abused to hell due to (sometimes historic, sometimes still ongoing) racism and NIMBYism, but that doesn't invalidate the whole concept.
In the US zoning is abused to hell due to (sometimes historic, sometimes still ongoing) racism and NIMBYism, but that doesn't invalidate the whole concept.
I strongly recommend you read the book.
Oh but it absolutely does. If you live next to a park and your teenage kid want to put an ice cream shop in your garage to operate on summer afternoons, zoning laws prevent it. Anti nuisance laws would not. If you want to run a single-seat hair salon in your neighbourhood, so that the old folks who can't drive could still get their hair cut locally, zoning laws prohibit it.
Obviously if you want to open a commercial shipping and receiving warehouse in your garage, both regimes would prevent it.
No matter what, zoning won't let me have a machine shop in my garage. The thing is that machine shops aren't all the same:
If I'm servicing heavy equipment there will be low-beds delivering equipment, a driveway full of grit, disassembled machines and oil stains along with welding and arc-air gouging, etc. Not something you want next door; nuisance laws stop this.
If I'm making parts for medical instruments, everything is inside, you can't see or hear any of it when I close the door, and traffic consists of me making weekly trips to buy bar stock and the occasional courrier van. What nuisance is that?
Both are machine shops but they are far from having the same impact on a street.
It would be safe to assume a business with 30 employees would bring nearly 30 cars into the street and a coffee shop could increase foot traffic.
These things aren't necessarily true, but those assumptions aren't necessarily unreasonable. I think this is where things break down.
Out my way, when zoning does allow home-based business, restrictions are mainly about yard/accessory building usage, customer traffic/parking, and number of non-resident employees(I assume because of parking).
I see it as an honest attempt to prevent nuisance activity while allowing some flexibility but it also seems lazy and too restrictive. My hypothetical garage based machine shop could be non-conforming and be one complaint away from being shut down no matter how unobtrusive it is.
Do you want to live in a home where your neighbor definitely won’t open a night club next door? Or do you want to live in a home where, in the event your neighbor opens a night club next door, you have a solid argument to make when asking for a restraining order. Keep in mind actually enforcing the restraining order is another matter entirely.
Yes, but these are ones forcing low density and therefore high housing prices.
and some people seemed to be pulling their water out of the ground.
what could go wrong?
we can reasonably argue that retail is different, or that other restriction on height or parking availability are counterproductive - but there seem to be really good reasons for not wanting to mix living and production
The effect a new structure has on its surroundings is an extremely important externality to measure and regulate. I want to be able to not only buy or rent land, but also be able to buy or rent land with restrictions on what can be allowed around it.
The most obvious example of when i have this right is when a major polluter pops up in my backyard, but light, noise, traffic, smell, and even view are all thing that should be protected to some extent. Or at least protectable.
Developers do not natively care about these externalities, and zoning is a coarse way of preventing that disconnect from completely destroying cities. It is a very complicated problem, and the cato institute is suggesting that we let investors make as much money as they can at the cost of those externalities, and because they are an evil PR firm, they dress that claim up as being good for the health of cities
Moreover, the fact that the cato institute is an evil PR firm is absolutely a general aegumwnt that the things that they say are bad faith, bad arguments. If you cannot come up with why they are wrong on your own, you should trust the dont trust cato heuristic, because the entire purpose of PR is to dress up evil as good.
I agree that zoning shouldn't be done away with entirely.
I think you're mostly right about developers not caring. Even the ones that care on a personal level are still in business to make money, but I really think the word evil is overused and hyperbolic in this situation.
I've done work for developers trying to squeeze every dollar out of a lot. They can be indifferent, greedy, and even antisocial but I haven't encountered evil.