There are also plenty of multiplex designs that have good noise insulation.
In reality people do want to live in them which is why zoning laws are used to prevent them from being built. If people refused to live there, there would be no need for zoning as developers wouldn’t build homes people don’t live in.
You would have each unit certified as either A, B or C. C being nearly no noise insulation, A being very quiet.
Let the market decide what they want to pay for.
As if construction costs were the primary factor in determining the cost of real estate in places with housing crisis problems (like the Bay Area).
Of course, then you’d ask, well why are construction costs so high in the Bay Area? And you might hear something about earthquakes, insulation, whatever. But the real reason is that contractors and construction workers need to live here too, and living here is damn expensive!
You're making an assumption that noise insulation is particularly subject to the market. Unfortunately noise 'insulation' like other insulation is extremely sensitive to competence in instiallation and maintenance.
Because it isn't particularly easy to gauge when shopping I don't believe that it is... and in markets where there are more prospective renters than units, it especially isn't.
And for some people, it beats a 3 hour commute. People should be free to choose what they prefer as long as it's safe.
And since housing is a zero sum game the market is already rigged in favor of landlords. People generally don't have as much choice where to live when you start considering school access, public transit, commute and so forth. Relying on the market to solve housing will simply result in miniature SFs popping up over the US, just like what's happening to Austin.
There's not even a shadow of Constitutional argument that that's a federal power.
A similar clause could be attached to the mentioned zoning law. (E.g. a person from one state buys land in another state? No zoning allowed - and because buying land within a state affects the prices for interstate purchases, suddenly there’s a nexus for regulation of purely intrastate purchases too!)
Not saying it’s a great idea, but it’s hardly clearly unconstitutional under modern precedent and interpretation.
A strict constructionist reading of the constitution would suggest that Gonzales v. Raich is judicial activism, and indeed, all the judges signatory to the majority opinion tend to be the "big government" types. Note that O'Connor and Rehnquist, two famous justices who often sided with strict constructionism, dissented. O'Connor wrote that though she did not support California's actions, she respected its right to do so:
"Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. "
Thomas also dissented, for somewhat similar principles though with different wording. Source for this is your link.
We don't implement things like this federally because needs differ. Bozeman, Montana can probably zone and sprawl as needed; it's small and there's lots of land. San Francisco can't. Why would any one feel the need to apply the same rules to both, unless it was an attempt to force a particular ideology on another? If there is sufficient support for something, it ought to pass just as well at the state or local level.
[0]: https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packin...
If Bozeman, Montana can sprawl without worry, why does it even need restrictive zoning laws mandating SFH’s? That’s what doesn’t make sense. People who move to Bozeman clearly want to live in SFH’s. Outlawing restrictive zoning laws doesn’t affect them in the least.
In practice, considering home construction and home buying are often transacted in interstate commerce (e.g. a company buying parts or supplies from out of state to build), it’s likely a Supreme Court case against a law relating to zoning could be upheld. The federal government already claims the ability to regulate other things such as guns constructed within the borders of a state and never moved outside them, all based on the arguments upheld in cases like Wickard that they possibly could affect interstate commerce.
Declining tax bases in rural areas will be death by a thousand cuts. It takes serious cash for a municipality to "keep the lights on".
This may sound slightly contrary to my prior opinion, but there ought be a middle ground between the free choice of wanting a SFH, but also having some level of community planning that ensures the community remains viable.
> Force cities to build duplexes/triplexes/four-plexes everywhere.
[1] https://www.reporternewspapers.net/2018/12/15/brookhaven-pio...
Banning single family zoning does not equate to banning single family homes!
It's more like: re-legalizing a lot of different housing options.
Where people want to build, the power-hungry folks in charge put restrictions in place and demand a troll toll to let a few projects through. And the folks in charge where nobody wants to build see the opportunity and seize it. It's just human nature, and it's the reason local government shouldn't be put in charge of density regulation.
If someone is happy in their SFH, why would it disappear?
If someone has the money, they'll be able to build new ones too.
Yeah, maybe central San Francisco won't have many, as people cash out, but that seems pretty reasonable. You can go live in Lakeview Oregon and have a huge house on a huge lot if that's what you want.
Besides - SFH's predate most restrictive zoning laws (which really caught on in the 70's). SFH's, at the edges of the city, aren't going anywhere.
> Force cities to build duplexes/triplexes/four-plexes everywhere.
which makes the intention ambiguous and slanted towards banning single family homes.
I distinctly recall it calling for a ban on single family housing. Considering that there are many replies calling it an overreaction and replying as thought it called for a ban on single family housing in general I would be willing to bet money it did not originally say what it says now.