Maybe, maybe not, but I think it’s worth a try! And even if it fails to do that, we would have accidentally built nicer places to live anyway – the horror!
Too bad the authoritarian NIMBY temporarily-embarrassed landlords infesting this thread are too enraged at the idea to even allow it to be considered.
(Also, I added to my previous comment after you replied. Might help answer your question.)
Zoning and NIMBYs are definitely a problem but I think inequality is the main problem here, the bank will always take the best deal and we will never be a better deal to them.
Focusing on zoning without banning multi-property ownership or institutional investment properties might put more people in rental housing units (often owned by institutional investors), but it doesn’t help break up increasingly concentrated property ownership
Zoning and NIMBYs are definitely a problem but I think inequality is the main problem here,
WTF do you think zoning is for?! It is intentionally, comprehensively, fractally racist and classist, and has been, by design, since its inception!
Quick history lesson:
First, there was de-jure housing segregation. That eventually got struck down by the courts (Buchanan v. Warley, 1917).
Next, racists responded by making racially-restrictive “Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions” (CC&Rs). Eventually, those were ruled unenforceable too (Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948), although they did evolve into modern HOAs that still often act discriminatorily using some excuse other than race as a fig leaf.
Finally, racists came up with zoning density restrictions: if they couldn’t keep black people out because they were black, at least they could try to keep them out by mandating a large minimum lot size and hoping they were too poor to afford it. (And it would keep the white trash out, too, so another silver lining there from their perspective.)
There’s a reason why all of these laws about single-family zoning (as opposed to other zoning laws about noxious land uses like paper mills and other manufacturing, which came a lot earlier) started popping up after 1948.
So yeah, that’s where we’re at. That’s why single-family zoning with large minimum lot sizes is a thing in this country. Anybody trying to make excuses otherwise is being ahistorical.
I already said I agree about zoning I just disagree that zoning solves the problem without also shoring up institutional investors.
I’m aware of zoning and housing discrimination.
I get the sense that you’re arguing from the perspective of someone who has been traumatized from arguing with so many NIMBYs, but this thread probably has few to none of those people.
I get the sense that you’re arguing from the perspective of someone who has been traumatized from arguing with so many NIMBYs…
That part you’re probably right about!
…but this thread probably has few to none of those people.
Maybe, but you might be surprised at how much NIMBYism transcends the political spectrum. I live in one of the most progressive (not “liberal;” genuinely progressive) parts of my city and we’ve still got a bunch of them whining in zoning meetings etc.
Maybe, maybe not, but I think it’s worth a try! And even if it fails to do that, we would have accidentally built nicer places to live anyway – the horror!
Too bad the authoritarian NIMBY temporarily-embarrassed landlords infesting this thread are too enraged at the idea to even allow it to be considered.
(Also, I added to my previous comment after you replied. Might help answer your question.)
Zoning and NIMBYs are definitely a problem but I think inequality is the main problem here, the bank will always take the best deal and we will never be a better deal to them.
Focusing on zoning without banning multi-property ownership or institutional investment properties might put more people in rental housing units (often owned by institutional investors), but it doesn’t help break up increasingly concentrated property ownership
WTF do you think zoning is for?! It is intentionally, comprehensively, fractally racist and classist, and has been, by design, since its inception!
Quick history lesson:
First, there was de-jure housing segregation. That eventually got struck down by the courts (Buchanan v. Warley, 1917).
Next, racists responded by making racially-restrictive “Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions” (CC&Rs). Eventually, those were ruled unenforceable too (Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948), although they did evolve into modern HOAs that still often act discriminatorily using some excuse other than race as a fig leaf.
Finally, racists came up with zoning density restrictions: if they couldn’t keep black people out because they were black, at least they could try to keep them out by mandating a large minimum lot size and hoping they were too poor to afford it. (And it would keep the white trash out, too, so another silver lining there from their perspective.)
There’s a reason why all of these laws about single-family zoning (as opposed to other zoning laws about noxious land uses like paper mills and other manufacturing, which came a lot earlier) started popping up after 1948.
So yeah, that’s where we’re at. That’s why single-family zoning with large minimum lot sizes is a thing in this country. Anybody trying to make excuses otherwise is being ahistorical.
I already said I agree about zoning I just disagree that zoning solves the problem without also shoring up institutional investors.
I’m aware of zoning and housing discrimination.
I get the sense that you’re arguing from the perspective of someone who has been traumatized from arguing with so many NIMBYs, but this thread probably has few to none of those people.
That part you’re probably right about!
Maybe, but you might be surprised at how much NIMBYism transcends the political spectrum. I live in one of the most progressive (not “liberal;” genuinely progressive) parts of my city and we’ve still got a bunch of them whining in zoning meetings etc.