Hacker News Reader

Comment by gph | Hacker News Reader

>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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com