from Hacker News

End Mandatory Single Family Zoning by Overturning Euclid vs. Ambler

by jseliger on 7/24/24, 3:04 PM with 33 comments

• by hoosieree on 7/24/24, 3:58 PM

  The xenophobic origins of zoning law is a cautionary tale for today. "I got mine, screw the rest of you"... but sooner or later "your" tribe becomes one of the "other" tribes.

  Lots of this attitude in society still, guess we'll never learn.

• by snakeyjake on 7/24/24, 4:56 PM

  The thing about density advocates which I don't understand is why they wall themselves off to the irrefutable, unquestionable, fact that the second anyone, anywhere in the world, has enough money they move to a less dense area.

  I was born in and lived and worked in Germany (mainly the Mainz-Frankfurt corridor) for many years. The second people get money they buy a station wagon and move out of their cramped apartment into a single-family home in an American-style neighborhood where they can park their caravan in the side yard and the only things they can smell or hear are their own farts.

  I also lived in Japan for several years. The very first thing people do when they get enough money is move out into a single-family detached home in an American-style (SLIGHTLY DENSER BUT STILL DON'T COME AT ME I HAVE PROOF) suburb where they can't feel the vibrations of people's footsteps as they walk down the shared apartment building hallway. Also, they usually buy a station wagon.

  It is as though the density freaks are completely incapable of comprehending that living packed in like sardines is unnatural and inhuman, and walkability means fuck-all when you get sick of smelling the nasty shit your neighbor is cooking while listening to them argue.

  I used to be a hip young urban professional who pretended that spending too much for a watered-down cocktail at a late-night gallery show was hip and cool and oh-so-cultured.

  Now I just want space for my ham radio antennas, nobody to complain about my ham radio antennas, dark (Bortle 4 where I live) skies for stargazing, and I want to be able to walk out on my deck with my dick out with no risk of being seen.

  I have missed density for approximately 0.0001 yoctoseconds and if inequality results then you work to raise up the people stuck in the jenga towers of humanity, not the other way around.

• by CalRobert on 7/24/24, 4:25 PM

  Of course, we’ve been allowing confiscation of public land by car owners to store their private property for a century, and it will be politically difficult to argue that housing is more important than free parking.

• by Eumenes on 7/24/24, 4:34 PM

  I don't want any development in my charming rural town. But if I have to pick, I'd prefer single family homes. Everyone knows that big developments bring crime, traffic/more cars, environmental concerns, burdens on the school system, etc. If you say otherwise, you're delusional. Build vertically in urban areas with jobs/resources/retail around.

  Actually, one of the first times I participated in local politics, was to successfully block a large development (100+ units, some of which included "affordable housing" lol). The developer was a favorite of the state - they get all the big contracts all over the state, and some former government officials are on their board (no doubt accepting bribes for their influence). It was a coalition of residents that spanned partisan politics. Just showing up to meetings on these issues, and if you have any public speaking skills, highlight the ties of the corrupt local political class to the developer/construction companies - locals don't like being hoodwinked by that.

• by throwawaysleep on 7/24/24, 3:52 PM

  This seems like a trojan horse to blow away the EPA and Endangered Species Act entirely.

• by haroldp on 7/24/24, 4:14 PM

  This is exactly what we need, but we can't have it. Though there is probably no single imposition keeping poor people poor than restrictions on land use.