End Mandatory Single Family Zoning by Overturning Euclid vs. Ambler | Hacker News Reader

End Mandatory Single Family Zoning by Overturning Euclid vs. Ambler

maximum-progress.com

48 pointsjseliger33 comments

The xenophobic origins of zoning law is a cautionary tale for today. "I got mine, screw the rest of you"... but sooner or later "your" tribe becomes one of the "other" tribes.

Lots of this attitude in society still, guess we'll never learn.

Mainly, Euclid didn't want Ambler to put a factory in their bedroom community, so they used (abused) their governmental powers to prevent it. Ironically (or perhaps inevitably) the federal government forced them to accept a General Motors aircraft factory in their town to support the war effort during WWII. There is a historical marker commemorating the Euclid v Ambler decision at the site of the factory.

Xenophobic is not really the correct term here. Political and social efforts to extract or maintain wealth for the incumbency is part of human society forever, e.g. the rollback of the Great Councils reforms in Venice and the fall of the republic Rome.

I think Xenophobic is exactly the right term. Many suburban zoning rules were designed to keep blacks and hispanics from being welcome - forcing them to stay in the city centers.

Of course, "xeno" implies that they are somehow alien to the area, which is particularly galling considering many black people were brought to the country against their will, and much of the country populated by hispanic people used to be part of Mexico...

Though I'm sure the people who passed the rules thought of such people as outsiders so I can see xenophobic being correct.

The thing about density advocates which I don't understand is why they wall themselves off to the irrefutable, unquestionable, fact that the second anyone, anywhere in the world, has enough money they move to a less dense area.

I was born in and lived and worked in Germany (mainly the Mainz-Frankfurt corridor) for many years. The second people get money they buy a station wagon and move out of their cramped apartment into a single-family home in an American-style neighborhood where they can park their caravan in the side yard and the only things they can smell or hear are their own farts.

I also lived in Japan for several years. The very first thing people do when they get enough money is move out into a single-family detached home in an American-style (SLIGHTLY DENSER BUT STILL DON'T COME AT ME I HAVE PROOF) suburb where they can't feel the vibrations of people's footsteps as they walk down the shared apartment building hallway. Also, they usually buy a station wagon.

It is as though the density freaks are completely incapable of comprehending that living packed in like sardines is unnatural and inhuman, and walkability means fuck-all when you get sick of smelling the nasty shit your neighbor is cooking while listening to them argue.

I used to be a hip young urban professional who pretended that spending too much for a watered-down cocktail at a late-night gallery show was hip and cool and oh-so-cultured.

Now I just want space for my ham radio antennas, nobody to complain about my ham radio antennas, dark (Bortle 4 where I live) skies for stargazing, and I want to be able to walk out on my deck with my dick out with no risk of being seen.

I have missed density for approximately 0.0001 yoctoseconds and if inequality results then you work to raise up the people stuck in the jenga towers of humanity, not the other way around.

> The thing about density advocates which I don't understand is why they wall themselves off to the irrefutable, unquestionable, fact that the second anyone, anywhere in the world, has enough money they move to a less dense area.

That should continue to be legal. You should be able to buy the kind of home you want. That what overturning Euclid V Ambler would allow again.

> I also lived in Japan for several years. The very first thing people do when they get enough money is move out into a single-family detached home in an American-style

What's important to note is that Japan greatly liberalized their zoning, setback, parking requirements after their big housing crisis, and now a family in Tokyo earning median income can actually afford to own a home in the city. You can't say that about New York, San Francisco, London, etc.

>You should be able to buy the kind of home you want.

This is not the stated goal of many, many, density/zoning/transit advocates. Bills have been introduced, stillborn, in Oregon, Washington, and California to ban single-family homes in certain areas by "forward thinkers".

I'm not responsible for what anyone else's goals. And I have never seen anyone advocate for making suburban houses illegal. I just want it to stop being literally illegal for people to use the land they own in safe and reasonable ways.

As a resident of Oregon, I am asking moreso from the perspective of ignorance and wanting to know more about this, so I'd love some insight here. From what I can tell, the following is what was "banned" or, in other words, implemented. To me, it reads a lot less as a ban, and a lot more as allowing the option for people to increase density on a property if they choose to do so. Do you have more information on where single-family homes were banned in the state of Oregon?

I mean, I live in a city with well over 25,000 residents and am currently watching a single-family development being built along my commute.

>Towns and cities with over 10,000 residents were required to allow duplexes on land zoned for single-family homes by June 2021.

>Towns and cities with over 25,000 residents were required to allow up to four-unit buildings as well as cottage clusters—four or more detached units with a shared courtyard—in residential zones by June 2022.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/eliminating-single-family-...

Mostly it isn’t about banning single family homes - it is about allowing for things out than single family homes - i.e not requiring them.

I admit that some diehards want to band them outright but I think the majority just want zoning to be looser so NINBYs can’t veto any extra density.

America is a bit of an exception where single family detached houses are often put in ridiculous places, such as right beside giant highway interchanges.

Densifying already high traffic areas makes sense. And is the default in most other countries.

There are probably extremists who would bulldoze suburbia and try to piggyback off sensible changes though.

I was born and grew up in single-family detached homes in California, and when I had the means I moved to a dense, walkable, bikable home in the Netherlands because I remember how isolating it was to be a kid in suburbia, and wanted different for my own kids.

But aside from my own anecdatum, it is truly bizarre you for you claim this as "irrefutable, unquestionable" when homes in dense places are very expensive, which can only be the case if lots of people want to live there.

Though I do agree with you on the dark skies, and wish cities cared about light pollution. It's the one thing I miss about living on 3 acres in the Irish countryside, which was a time in my life marked primarily by profound loneliness.

What are you even talking about? It costs way more to live in the city than out in the country. And where are these “irrefutable, unquestionable facts” you mention? All I see is a big heap of anecdata and petty grievances. In my experience, it’s the opposite: plenty of people want to move to my city but just can’t afford it. You might enjoy your ham radio and starlit nudity, but many people would find that kind of life terrifically boring.

Personally, in my mid-thirties, I’m actually trying to upsize from my 1-mil population city to a global supercenter like NYC, Paris, or London. Maybe I’ll feel different when I’m 60 and a misanthrope.

Of course, we’ve been allowing confiscation of public land by car owners to store their private property for a century, and it will be politically difficult to argue that housing is more important than free parking.

I don't want any development in my charming rural town. But if I have to pick, I'd prefer single family homes. Everyone knows that big developments bring crime, traffic/more cars, environmental concerns, burdens on the school system, etc. If you say otherwise, you're delusional. Build vertically in urban areas with jobs/resources/retail around.

Actually, one of the first times I participated in local politics, was to successfully block a large development (100+ units, some of which included "affordable housing" lol). The developer was a favorite of the state - they get all the big contracts all over the state, and some former government officials are on their board (no doubt accepting bribes for their influence). It was a coalition of residents that spanned partisan politics. Just showing up to meetings on these issues, and if you have any public speaking skills, highlight the ties of the corrupt local political class to the developer/construction companies - locals don't like being hoodwinked by that.

And how much more expensive is rent in your town because it has 100 fewer units? That is the opportunity cost. Unfortunately, these opportunity costs are not borne by landowners, just by renters. And then when the government charges landowners higher taxes on their now more valuable property, the owners balk.

My town almost has zero renters - something like 5-7%. Most of those are accessory dwellings or STR for the lake in town. Very low property tax (paying $1200/year on a $400k 2k sq foot home with 5 acres). Shares a school district with 4 other local towns/villages.

The developer/advocates for this initiative tried to sell residents on "local businesses need employees..." - Sorry, I don't give a shit. If you can't hire people, pay them more + offer better benefits. Building "affordable" houses so you can import minimum wage worker populations that also benefit from state welfare/ebt/insurance is not good policy.

> Everyone knows that big developments bring crime, traffic/more cars, environmental concerns, burdens on the school system, etc.

Citation needed.

In fact, denser development, when done right, reduces traffic and makes public transit more viable.

> If you say otherwise, you're delusional.

Europe is just fine.

> Build vertically in urban areas with jobs/resources/retail around

Alternative: allow mixed zoning everywhere, so that small business have the chance to be close to residents instead of being forced to compete with big boxes.

Also, slash parking requirements. They are mostly made up with no basis on anything, most numbers are just vibes.

> Everyone knows that big developments bring crime, traffic/more cars, environmental concerns, burdens on the school system, etc. If you say otherwise, you're delusional. Build vertically in urban areas with jobs/resources/retail around.

I am confused what you are talking about. A single mid-rise building brings far more tax revenue than the equivalent land in single family homes, which supports a lot of the initiatives you are referring to. Also, environmentally, the benefits of heating and cooling and fewer cars on the road etc for a dense development are far greater than single family.

And crime… I have no idea what you are referring to. But go to Jane Jacobs’ work in the 60s and the idea of “eyes on the street” and how more density means fewer opportunities for crime (per capita) and particularly when accounting for socioeconomic status.

Anyways, I think you’re wrong but I’d be interested to know what you are basing your thoughts on.

I've never seen property taxes go down for a local town/municipality. I don't care about tax revenue. I don't want Mcdonalds or Walmart in my town. I don't want huge developments. Keep things small.

Where will those 100+ people live instead?

Don't care. They don't live here - there aren't 100s of homeless families around town. They live out of town. Its not a towns responsibility to subsidize housing for people who aren't even residents.

Before you moved there you were one of those 100.

This seems like a trojan horse to blow away the EPA and Endangered Species Act entirely.

95% of this article is about the distinction between police powers for health and safety and the broader takings allowed by Euclid.

EPA's interests in regulating land use are much more squarely in the police powers carveout than the zoning regulations that limit the number of occupants on a residential parcel.

If EPA says you can't build a dam or otherwise alter the watershed that overlaps your land, they have a clear rationale for that regulation that goes beyond "protecting the charm and character" of a particular neighborhood.

Just overturning the decision that says occupancy density is itself a police power would be narrow enough to ease building restrictions while not blowing the EPA away.

Eminent domain powers in the US are very broad at this point and almost certainly would include zoning. The question is if the government can do it without compensation. Either way the government can zone land or protect species. The question is if they've gotta pay individual land owners or not.

This is just wrong as a matter of law. The federal government can only regulate land through the commerce cause--not through police powers to police species.

I don't think that's a fair reading.

I can't think of any instance where the endangered species act would allow housing in some area near wildlife, but only if it didn't have a dividing wall between living spaces.

Same with the EPA.

Zoning is almost entirely set at the local level.

This article focuses primarily on rules applied to land already designated for residential use.

If it resulted in an end to single family zoning it would probably still be a net win for nature.

This is exactly what we need, but we can't have it. Though there is probably no single imposition keeping poor people poor than restrictions on land use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com