Pretty much the only zoning needed is low noise and high noise (airport, late night music venues, etc). All the other things that tag along with zoning are not needed. The only reason for noise zoning is to prevent people from moving next to an existing high noise activity and pushing it out.

Zoning laws effectively turn into a tax on new comers to an area as things like "protected views", height restrictions just add to the cost of housing and running a business. Also these laws reduce density which makes having good public transportation harder and means you have to commute more to your job.

Permitting could be more streamlined, but should be required for any non cosmetic change as people try to cut corners to save $0.50 that can easily kill someone.

Disclaimer: I own property next to a large airport.

Zoning isn't needed just for low and high noise.

You also have to consider factors like industrial safety. For example, fertilizer[1] and pesticide[2] plants must be built a certain distance away from populated areas. There are, of course, many other industrial processes that also require a safety perimeter, but those are two that come immediately to mind.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explos...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

While I haven't though enough on the issue to have much of an opinion on abolishing zoning completely, zoning seems like the wrong way of dealing with hazardous companies like that regardless. There is already an extensive permitting process and a mountain of regulation that you'd have to go through to open one of these companies, so why not enforce the safety perimeter through that?

It makes more sense to me to place the restrictions on the company/factory than the land itself, and building permits are already used by municipalities to negotiate location, etc.

That would prevent a hazardous factory from being built next to residences, but wouldn't prevent residences being built nearby after the factory is already there. For that, you'd need restrictions on the residences and/or the land.

Maybe a hybrid solution would work? Have a zone tied to the factory, no residential buildings within a certain radius of the factory, but if the factory shuts down or moves, the zone goes with it.

That's a really cool idea.

Is that the problem these cities have, too many fertilizer plants? It seems unlikely, but I haven't visited the West Coast in a few years. You might have better luck talking about natural gas storage.

> These laws exist, in some extent, to preserve the existing character of the area, for better or worse.

You're agreeing with parent.

> What you are suggesting, would lead to a lower quality of life for everyone, rich and poor. It would increase crime and decrease sanitation.

How so?

>"If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved."

I've been considering campaigning for Donald Trump. Given his background, I think he may be the most likely president to push for the sort of anti-Zoning laws I'm interested in. Perhaps you're right.

>"Do you own real property?"

Yes, I own a home in a wealthy suburb just outside of Philadelphia. I am well aware of the growing pains this would cause. But that can't stop us, this is a human rights issue, as far as I am concerned.

Zoning isn't a federal issue and won't be one in the next 8 years.

kiiiindof - one of the strategies we are investigating is suing under the fair housing act to overturn large lot single family zoning. Also - HUD is starting to investigate exclusionary zoning cases.

So, if I bought the house next door to you, and had 8 separate families live there (I would be charging them rent), you would be okay with that?

Also, since garbage storage would be a problem, I told my tenants they can just toss their garbage bags over the fence into your yard, and you would take care of it.

And since parking is now an issue with 15 additional cars, and friends visiting in their cars, I suggested they use your driveway or yard as parking.

Are you okay with that?

My parents live in a subdivision with 5,000-6,000 square foot houses occupied by empty nesters. There is a growing Hispanic population in the area and a lot of opposition to Hispanics moving into such houses with big extended families. But so long as everyone followed other laws, letting those extended families move in would be a win for both economic and racial integration as well as the general character of the neighborhood. And while we're at it, maybe someone could open a nice ethnic restaurant on a first floor of one of the houses. It'd be another huge improvement in the character of the neighborhood.

anyone can move in to those places if they have the money and the property is for sale. your restaurant idea is actually happening in some parts of south and east los angeles, illegally - i've seen youtube videos documenting the phenomenon.

having said that, i don't think those existing homeowners would be any more willing to let white extended families move in and open up burger joints downstairs either.

"But so long as everyone followed other laws"

Would you agree that the population density of an area has some correlation to the crime in that area?

NYC is one of the safest places in the world _per capita_

Why would people use his property to park cars? The developer would purchase property and include a driveway / garage. You are being ridiculous. The problem is that regulations wouldn't allow an 8 family home. I live in a dense area and there are single families, triple deckers, and apartment complexes all around me. Welcome to Boston

Why would I need to purchase or develop additional property?

He supports my right use the house I purchased (next door to his) in any way I see fit.

So, If I have 8 families living in a single family home, there may be some sanitation and parking problems.

If 8 families want to live in a single family home, it must be an exceptionally desirable area, with very little housing.

It stands to reason there are probably many more people who want to move in to the area, but who aren't willing to be one of 8 families in a single family home.

So given the huge amount of pent-up demand, there must be some building laws in place keeping this specific city from growing upwards, and generating supply for this demand.

This is probably a building limits problem.

There are plenty of places where land is cheap but units are still too expensive for low wage workers and their nonworking children.

The parent poster is not advocating for trespassing and liter.

Nor am I, but what can he do to enforce his rights at that point?

My tenants don't car about his property, and now he has to figure out which tenant violated his rights?

Yet, all these families now have legal rights and protections to live next door to him.

Call the police? Now you are taking a disproportionate amount of taxpayer resources to protect this specific individual's private property rights.

What if it keeps happening? Assign a special task-force to my specific rental property (the one next-door to the parent poster)?

I can put cameras outside of my home, I can have cars towed away, I can find the ripped up bill in their trash bag that tells me the perpetrator is John Q. Badguy.

But that is neither here nor there. My desire for comfort is nullified when it's being weighted against someone's human rights.

Yes you are advocating trespassing and litter. Saying that you'll rent to 8 families and they'll have no choice but to trespass and litter is advocating it. You literally say "I told my [hypothetical] tenants they can just toss their garbage bags over the fence into your yard, and you would take care of it."

How many people can live in a building generally isn't even regulated by zoning, it's set by building/fire codes and the certificate of occupancy. Removing the zoning isn't suddenly going to change the legal max occupants/residents of the building.

Increase crime, or expose more rich people to crime?