One issue is that zoning rules don't always cover every potential problem. For example, there's been a huge controversy in Redwood City (and neighboring Atherton) regarding a coffee shop that is going in, which will employ lingerie-clad baristas (and apparently have mirrors on the ground, to make things even skeezier). [1]

This coffee shop apparently meets all current zoning rules, though the employees may need to be somewhat less scantily-clad than the ones working at other locations. Regardless, this shows one way in which zoning rules don't always predict developments that neighbors might reasonably want to avoid.

1: https://abc7news.com/business/lingerie-bikini-clad-baristas-...

EDIT: Thanks for downvoting, but perhaps a response would be more productive?

I didn't downvote, but my mental reaction isn't positive. You don't think anybody in Redwood City would want to go to a place like that? If you want to ban strip clubs and casinos, then ban strip clubs and casinos, but from your description it sounds like trying to block a Hooters from opening, after they have already agreed to limit themselves out of regard for what some might call Puritan concerns. You're arguing against something using an example that most of your audience doesn't agree is valid.

Oh I'm not saying I don't think anyone in RWC would want to go there (though the discussions on NextDoor have been mostly one-sided). I'm just pointing out that there are gaps in zoning laws, since we can't anticipate every possible thing. That's what leads people to want to have zoning rules that err on the side of conservatism, so that they don't end up with something like this. Thanks for explaining your reaction.

I should also note that this is somewhat closer to a strip club than a Hooters, since the attire is lingerie, not tight shirts. Basically, they're falling somewhere between two things that were known to exist (strip clubs and Hooters) when the rules were presumably made. In the future, I'm sure towns around here will make rules that are more restrictive, citing this as an example of what happens when you leave more room.

So in situations like these, do you:

a) Fix the zoning rules

b) Make everybody ask the city council and all their neighbors for permission for every little thing, every time

(a) is at least trying to make an even playing field for everyone. The rules are for everybody, and everybody has to follow them, regardless of political connections or money or lawyering, etc. At least in theory.

With (b), you start by trying to get an exception carved out for yourself, so in practice only those with the most patience, money, lawyers, political connections, etc. will be able to get what they want, and everybody else gets the Kafka treatment.

Can zoning rules be changed retroactively? And even if this is allowed, can zoning rules be put in place with the goal of booting out a specific business? I think ex post facto prohibitions only apply to criminal laws, but in general I think we disfavor targeting individual businesses with legislation.

For background, I live in a neighborhood where the property sizes are much much smaller than the rest of the zoned area. So we have to get exceptions for many things because the rules were written for properties that are 10x to 50x the size. I wish that rules could be written to cover every possible eventuality, and I personally feel the pain because they cannot (I have to pay for every exception and variance in the approval process). So having seen how rules are blunt instruments, I have some sympathy for folks who are caught up in the process.