Hacker News Reader

Comment by spiritplumber | Hacker News Reader

Similar issue here. What I wanted to do was take a warehouse (zoned light industrial), essentially cut it in half, and live next to my workshop.

Explaining that this is common in my home country, it'd take at least one car off the road during commute hours (mine), etc. was in vain.

View on HN

Lots of people do that type of thing here too, but un-permitted. If you wanted to be really particular, you could probably get a permit for the work itself (plumbing, kitchen, etc) as long as it wasn't specified as residential.

This is what we've come to though - the government has taken away our rights and sell them back to us with permits.

>This is what we've come to though - the government has taken away our rights and sell them back to us with permits.

Perfectly stated. Perhaps especially in this case with "zoning" laws. Dealing with a bunch of crap myself in trying to find commercial properties. Unbelievable the number of codes and rules...

>This is what we've come to though - the government has taken away our rights and sell them back to us with permits.

Ah yes, my inalienable right to zone property as I see fit because I want to redevelop it. So often forgotten.

Yea most local governments are slow and obtuse with zoning, but it's not as if the concept of zoning is a violation of your rights, or even that bad of a thing. Criticism is fine, but using hyperbolic statements about how the government is stealing our rights is just asinine.

The government is telling you that you cannot use your own property as you see fit (with the threat of being kidnapped or stolen from).

Zoning is to prevent a paper factory from opening up shop next to an elementary school, not to give themselves a job by creating arbitrary rules.

So what is it; Can I build whatever I want on any property I own, or can the government stop me from building a paper factory next to an elementary school?

You've thrown out two contradictory statements. If you agree with zoning in certain circumstances then you can't hold that property is a right for use by owner as they see fit(without the threat of being kidnapped or stolen from). Just because the current zoning system in most locales is overly bureaucratic, or even corrupt, doesn't mean the idea of zoning should be done away, or that property is a right the government can't interfere with.

Criticism is one thing, but framing this as an issue about the government taking away our rights is not productive.

Easy, I don't know if any jurisdictions have this notion, but most people would agree that industrial buildings are less pleasant than commercial buildings which are less pleasant than residential.

Forbid people from building factories in commercial zones, or restaurants in residential zones without permits, but don't impede the reverse. If people want to live in an industrial zone, let them.

Sure there are downsides to this, a developer could buy up part of an industrial zone and build houses on it, which might reduce the efficiency of the industry around it, and would require the residents to petition to have their area rezone to avoid someone building a paper factory next to their elementary school. But as discussed, there are downsides of the current approach.

You're still arguing about the details of how zoning should be implemented, not whether it's a fundamental right.

Japan has something similar to this. You can build buildings of a higher restriction (residential being more strict then industrial) in a lower restriction zone.

This article describes it rather well.

http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

I'm in favor of this, but to play the devil's advocate - what happens to the 20% that remains after 80% of an industrial zone has been converted to residential?

It's going to be like when people buy houses next to the airport then complain about the noise

Being a fundamental right doesn't mean limitless. Free speech is a fundamental right, yet you will get into trouble when you yell fire in a theater. And of course property right is a fundamental right, we just sacrifice some the of the property right in the form of zoning laws to achieve other goals, similar to our other rights. When somebody asked us to sacrifice our rights without enough reason, it is a violation of the rights.

It's called a Variance, and in my county(Marin county) they are never issued anymore. They used to be issued to "good ole boys", but those days are even over.(I'm glad that's the case. Why should just rich boys, or networked boys get what they want?)

If you are living a commercial zoned space; realize that the government can come into your building(at anytime), slap a red tag on it, and the tenant is out. (My father had an illegial mother in-law unit in his garage(done well, even ADA accessible), wasn't even charging rent.

Well this building inspector found out about it. Knocked on my father's door. My father let him in. The guy told my father he needs to tear out the illegial unit. Well my father being the sensible Irishman, took the Inspector, threw him on the ground, frisked him, and called the Cops. My father had no idea these guys had so much authority. He thought he was being set up for a home invasion? No in reality, he just "lost it". He knew--he was in the Trades. He got mad--it happens to the best of us? Well, since this was years ago, and my father had his best friend(an Oakland cop) come to court; my father got off scott free. White privlege? (That day, my father realized too much government power is just wrong. I never heard, "They probally got what they deserved!"

While I'm at it; my rich neighbor, decided to build a three bedroom house on his property. Property his parents bought him 40 years ago. He has 20 acres? It was right after the 2008 crash. He needed rental income to live his lavish lifestyle. He thought he was a Titan, and "More people should get creative in down economies?"

He got all the permits. He spend $850,000 building the place. It was ready to rent! His first renter told him he would gladly move his family in, but there's rent control in detached homes. He could only rent to people at or below the federal poverty level, and rent was tied to this metric in some way? Instead of getting $5000/month---he could only rent it out for around $800. He was floored! Beyond angry. It's still just sitting there. (This is the only rent control we have in Marin County. I'm still a fan of some form of rent control though.) He told his mother she could live in the detached house for free. She said, 'I bought you your mansion, those fancy cars, antiques, and for all your stupid failed businesses(Businesses that kept him thinking he was completely self made? No one helped me out? A real Horato Alger's; I'll sleep in the mansion, and you sleep in the detached house!' Love that mom! Really, she set this dude up for life, why shouldn't she expect to sleep in the mansion? (I don't care if your parents made you wealthy, but admit it, and help needy family members? I've only know a few rich boys who weren't in denial--George Sorrows comes to mind. He frequently states, 'My wealth is completely due to my father's generosity, and connections! He's an interesting man. He's also an author. He believes his wealth prevents people from taking his writing seriously. He might be right?)

Cheers! (Make sure you are not overpaying rent. I know dudes who don't tell tenants about rent control. They wait until the tenant figures it out.)

"He got all the permits. He spend $850,000 building the place. It was ready to rent! His first renter told him he would gladly move his family in, but there's rent control in detached homes. He could only rent to people at or below the federal poverty level, and rent was tied to this metric in some way? Instead of getting $5000/month---he could only rent it out for around $800."

Sounds like, with spending all that money on the building, he could have taken 10 minutes to call a real estate lawyer and find that out.

My dad was on his city's zoning board for a few years. What he learned was that a variance was only supposed to be used in cases where the intent of the zoning ordinance was inapplicable, such as some physical obstacle in your property, or as an extreme case, a person who had no back yard and wanted a fenced-in place for his toddler to play.

But "hardship" cases were supposed to be rejected. What really happened was that the board approved every case, and my dad quit the board after that became apparent.

A current example is video game bars, like Barcade. There are often antiquated restrictions on video game arcades in zoning law that are aimed solely at kids, to prevent truancy. They make no sense in the modern world, in a place aimed at adults. Check out this list of variances this place needs:

"Variances to allow 50 game machines were a maximum of three are permitted, 2 game machines per 100sf of area where a maximum of 1 is permitted, no side or front clearance for game machines where 3ft and 8ft respectively are required, no attendant for 50 game machines where 4 are required and no off-street bicycle stalls where 24 stalls are required for a 100 seat Café with 50 game machines. A"

That's certainly valid. I'd suggest it's a case where the remedy would be to update the zoning laws, so it's done in a somewhat more transparent fashion.

A developer just got my state to pass a law saying that a particular property in my neighborhood is exempt from our city zoning laws.

An argument for that idea of making laws expire by default unless renewed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com