> Right now our laws prevent us from building affordable and livable homes
Which laws are those?
Which laws are those?
it sounds ironic, but much of the shift to suburban development patterns in the USA was indeed driven by the Great Migration into cities – specifically, the migration of formerly-enslaved Black Americans out of the rural south and into cities. US public policy was very explicit about disinvesting in cities and destroying vibrant urban neighborhoods, replacing them with freeways and parking lots.
today, large portions of US cities are zoned for exclusively single-family homes, and other zoning requirements like parking minimums, and minimum setback and lot sizes continue to slow urban, transit-oriented redevelopment.
My understanding is this is where it started but the mass migration of everyone off of the farm really started to happen when gasoline engines became standard equipment and replaced beasts of burden.
> and lot sizes continue to slow urban, transit-oriented redevelopment.
I'm not convinced this is the entirety of the problem, fortunately US policy is not a monolith, and several cities are experimenting with different configurations. It will be interesting to see if "developers" start opting for the multiplex configurations that are now being allowed in traditional single family zones.
People that want to live near businesses and don't, should move to places that have it - there are lots of places in the country like that.
People that want to live in an entirely residential area, but don't, should move to those places that are.
Why do we need a single solution for everyone, in all areas?
A really prominent case in Moreno Valley, CA exposes how this often works:
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/losangeles/news...
And LA: https://www.dailynews.com/2024/01/26/13-years-in-federal-pri...
And Dallas: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/dallas-city-council-mem...
The flaw in democracy, manifest.
You simply can't say "We literally do not need anyone. Things are fine. If there's an emergency we can convene something, but outside of that, I don't actually want a body convened with the responsibility of changing things randomly. I'm busy and I don't have the time to keep an eye on these goofs."
It should be that if voter turnout is less than 25%, the election is canceled and either held again, or the seat just left vacant until the next election. Or you are elected, but without power until an emergency is declared, then you have the standard powers but only for that temporary period.
maybe it's a cultural thing? i'm australian and it's mandatory here so that may be affecting my views?
It does not seem wise to solicit (much less demand) opinions from those who would choose to withhold them. These would be the least-informed opinions available.
We have enough trouble with the people who insist on sharing when their opinion is unwelcome. (These are often a close second on the least-informed scale!) :)
Then you get Brazil. Literal clowns and jokes for candidates.
> i dont understand why people seem to refuse to participate in democracy
Participating in democracy means actually going to meetings, trying to get on the agenda, watching and reporting on the business of the government. Voting is literally the smallest form of participation available.
Further, even if it wasn't, I'm a free person. I didn't ask to be born in your democracy, I don't feel required to participate in it, and even your system of participation explicitly denies me the right to say "no."
> and it's mandatory here
My view is all this does is give politicians a false mandate. They're forcing you to pick from a slate they've likely manipulated and introduce the majority mode of "least worst of."
Is that what my forced participation is to boil down to? Giving full authority to the least worst person that got sent up that year? What about this makes you feel that you have participated in anything?
The limitations are largely NIMBYism. There's a block of six units in my short one-block street of otherwise detached single-family dwellings, and the elderly neighbours here talk about how they wished they'd objected to its building decades ago because it changed the character of the street.
It's all tension between "what is best for me and the street as it was when I bought into it" and "what is best for us all collectively". Building here is slightly outpacing population, but it is too financially attractive to buy second and third properties as investments, and it is politically risky to tackle that.
By this logic, it would seem impossible to critique really anything that any democratically elected government does.
That doesn't make them just or a good idea.
>Why do we need a single solution for everyone, in all areas?
Because we have a severe housing shortage. Because why should a crank three blocks over get any input at all into me wanting to put a multiplex on my private property. This isn't advocating for a single solution, it is advocating for a revisiting of a set of rules that are increasingly being found to be the cause of very serious social problems that benefit very few people.
If you want to live in a place that is only SFH with no businesses, that necessarily places a restriction on a historically allowable use of someone else's private property. Zoning is a VERY recent invention.
In Washington, certain cities put restrictions on SRO units. The state is passing legislation to make that easier. [1][2]
These are just cities I've lived in. I would imagine other cities are facing similar zoning questions.
Some of us think that more housing is a good thing, and laws preventing units like ADUs or SROs are prima facie misguided.
[0] https://www.oregonlive.com/hg/2021/09/put-a-spare-home-or-tw...
[1] https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/vault/micro-housing
[2] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/once-curbe...
Specifically:
- Huge min lot sizes
- Offsets
- Covenants*
We can start by removing/revising those.
(*Certain covenants are no longer enforceable today)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/06/17/...
Some of the housing regulations were legitimately put in place for safety reasons to protect people. Others were put in place to keep black and Asian people out. Especially after government initiatives to prevent discrimination in housing like the 1968 Fair Housing Act, efforts to keep out minorities became cloaked in the garb of "public safety", and minority-excluding regulations were sanitized into affordability-excluding regulations.
It's more so a generation issue than a red-blue issue. Urbanism is bipartisan.