Mostly correct. US zoning laws in particular are responsible for urban sprawl, separation of services from housing and the massive environmental impact that produces. Default mixed use is demonstrably more efficient use of land. Cleaver neighborhoods are toxic.

> US zoning laws in particular are responsible for urban sprawl [...]

Houston managed an impressive urban sprawl without zoning laws.

Just because you are allowed to build 100 stories into the heavens doesn't mean you will when its cheaper to build flat across an empty swath of land. When you hit capacity on that empty swath of land, like in the LA basin, but aren't allowed to build high to meet demand, like in the LA basin, then you have a supply problem.

Imagine the mess that NY would have looked like if Manhattan was limited to single family homes. The city would sprawl across half of NY, NJ, and CT easy.

Houston has zoning laws - they mandate parking for example. The laws are generally more lax than other places, but some of their mandates encourage sprawl.

Houston has zoning laws, they just don't use the Z-word.

https://kinder.rice.edu/2015/09/08/forget-what-youve-heard-h...

>Why should zoning laws be fought tooth-and-nail?

Because infringing on people's right to do what they want with their property deserves a hell of a lot more scrutiny than it gets right now. Trying to centrally manage what can be done where doesn't scale. See SF housing prices.

>Can I open a nightclub in my house?

As long as it meets the standards that night clubs have to meet then sure. You're unlikely to be able to do these things and be commercially successful enough to subsity in primarily residential area.

>What about parking? Can I pave my front lawn and rent the space out as parking spots? Or maybe put a dumpster there for local businesses to put their trash in?

Sure. Just be aware that you might be on the hook if you do a half-assed paving job and the runoff affects your neighbors. Once again if you truly are in a residential area where this kind of thing is not appropriate you will have a hard time being successful enough at it to annoy anyone who isn't already annoyed by everything.

>There's a tree on my boulevard. Can I cut the tree down and park a truck on the boulevard?

This is more complicated because you get into right of way issues and the city usually has a pretty substantial right of way beside the road (sidewalk?) but sure, if none of that is an issue then feel free to cut it down.

>I decided to run a grow-op in my house. When I turn the electricity on, the lights fade in my neighbours houses because the load on my grow-up is so much bigger than the equipment is designed to support.

If the power company was worried about QoS to the other customers on the street they wouldn't give you the massive breaker you need for that operation. If the neighbors are really bothered by it they can complain to the power company and if they complain enough then it will get addressed. There is no need for laws for this sort of thing. Once again if you're really in a residential area you're unlikely to get that kind of service if you really are somewhere it would be a problem. The power company has internal rules about what service gets installed where (basically their own zoning) in order to ensure that breakers on bigger equipment upstream are not tripped during times of peak load.

There's nothing stopping you from buying a piece of land and having no zoning controls. Then you can market it as a neighbourhood for people who want to be free.

Good luck finding anyone to live in that kind of neighbourhood by choice. If you have an area with zero controls, it quickly will become a race-to-the-bottom.

The kinds of people who want to live in a nice neighbourhood, and be nice neighbours, will go live somewhere else.

It turns out that people feel the same way about freedom to do what you like with your single-family home as they do about the freedom to drive a car without getting a license or being insured, and the freedom to drive on whichever side of the road you like, and the freedom to drive a vehicle without smog regulation or safety rules.

Most people don't want your freedom, because the upside of their freedom is greatly outweighed by the downsides of their neighbour's freedoms.

They'll all just go any set up gated communities where everyone buying a home must contractually agree to the neighbourhood's own regulations.

You know most of the world has much more lax zoning and land use laws than the USA right? Somehow they manage to have nice neighborhoods with nice neighbors.

There's also nothing wrong with gated communities and in fact that would be vastly preferable to having a few rich people make everybody in the city abide by their own arbitrary regulations.

These examples vary in how outrageous they are, but some of them have the ability to singlehandedly depreciate someone else's most valuable asset by tens of thousands of dollars without any sort of recourse. Even if the nightclub or parking ventures aren't successful you'll probably have a hard time getting the same value out of that house.

And that's fine?

Yes, it's fine. You bought your lot, not your neighbor's. Zoning and land use laws are one of the primary reason why America has such shitty yet simultaneously expensive cities.

Yeah. You have no right to ROI on any investment.

Agreed.

If you're buying the property for any purpose other than flipping then ROI from the sale of the property itself shouldn't be a serious consideration. Either you're living there and sale doesn't really matter so long as you don't get shafted too badly whenever you do sell or you're renting or using it commercially in which case the cost to acquire is sunk and the returns from that should more than make up for change in value and whatever you get from a sale at the end is just a bonus.

I mean... every one of those examples involves construction/renovation or directly impacts neighbors. Having guests over in your unchanged house, parking in your designated parking spaces, and just happening to charge money for the experience is a much more reasonable grey area - and doesn't affect tenants much if they hold the guests to the same behavioral standards as the original tenant. If they were just regular roommates/friends, it would be pretty intrusive to ban such behavior, especially if they're not violating maximum occupancy rules. I agree it's a violation in spirit, and many of the above rules get broken anyway, but there's definitely a grey area here that needs a different set of rules.

  > and doesn't affect tenants much if
  > they hold the guests to the same
  > behavioral standards as the original tenan

How do you hold them to that? What leverage do I have over the loud bachelor party at the house you rented out next to mine?

> Why should zoning laws be fought tooth-and-nail

Because it is mostly used by rich property owners to artificial prop up the value of their capital investment, to the detriment of renters and people who cannot afford to purchase properties.

I'm 100% up for making long-term rental more available. I am not in any way supportive of the SF model.