Zoning rules are awesome tools, for improving your own situation at the uncompensated expense of others.

And what decent person would ever want to object, if 95% of the victims are both "not like us", and members of lower classes?

▲

profsummergig 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

2nd order effects.

One moment you allow multiple unrelated people to share a house.

Next moment they're living 5 to a room and there are 8 cars parked in their front yard.

My peeve is about banning of growing food in your front yard in many states. So much available land going waste growing grass (that is not even fed to cows).

▲

pavel_lishin 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

One moment you allow growing food in your front yard.

Next moment, you've got a rat infestation living 5 to a burrow and 8 of them are moving into your house.

My pet peeve is yet some other thing that might have downsides.

▲

plasticchris 3 days ago | parent [-]

Everyone has a different peeve, and they all conflict. That’s why population density correlates with regulation.

▲

bluGill 3 days ago | parent [-]

regulation itself is fine. However the details matter and all too often the regulation is in the wrong place. Writing good regulations is hard. There are always unintended concequences, and most are not even willing to ask what they might be much less debate if we can/should accept them.

	▲	bombcar 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's the real underlying current in all this - most people just don't give a shit one way or the other, so nothing much is going to move. Which is why it's easy to get everyone together and ban backyard chickens because the whole town is sick of Bob's fucking rooster - but much harder to get them to unban them decades later.

▲

potato3732842 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>One moment you allow multiple unrelated people to share a house.

>Next moment they're living 5 to a room and there are 8 cars parked in their front yard.

Is it on their property? If so not my problem.

Having principals and sticking to them makes reasoning about the subjects so easy.

▲

9rx 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Next moment they're living 5 to a room and there are 8 cars parked in their front yard.

Being from a community where the pro-nationalist movement has really taken hold, that sounds like a single, related family. Why do you give them special treatment?

▲

wat10000 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The absolute horror of people using their private property the way they wish without doing you any harm.

▲

deadbabe 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Aesthetics matter. You grow food in the front yards, pretty soon front yards will look like shit, then the homes look like shit, and then your life feels like shit.

	▲	wat10000 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Every time I see a farm I think, this is so ugly, it would be so much nicer to look at if it were a suburb with manicured laws instead.
	▲	erfgerfgwertg 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think you hate dogs! Front yards were always a dog toilets, and were always full of shit!

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

bell-cot 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Straw man. You could easily use fire codes, noise ordinances, and other basic measures to rule out the real problems.

▲

JoshTriplett 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Next moment they're living 5 to a room and there are 8 cars parked in their front yard.

So? Not your yard, not your business.

▲

echelon 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Zoning rules can be useful, but if they produce negative externalities then they should be taxed.

Want to only allow single-family residences?

Fine, but pay the city taxes on that privilege. Then use those funds to offset the negative externality.

▲

3 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

9rx 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If the majority faction of the population want to force single family residences, what other majority faction is going to want to force a tax on it? Mathematically, you would need to find overlap where a large segment of the population want both single-family residences and to be taxed on it.

Good luck.

▲

echelon 3 days ago | parent [-]

You won't in the suburbs, which isn't where the problems lie. Nobody cares if you have a big single family residence when the land is plentiful.

Major urban centers have enough renters to form a voting bloc, and this is where such a policy could be useful to increase housing supply.

	▲	9rx 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> enough renters to form a voting bloc Maybe, but voting would only matter if there was a referendum, which is highly unlikely for something that isn't challenging fundamental rights. Taxes are easily repealed if the people realize they made a mistake. It not need that kind of level of agreement. What does matter is having time to participate in democracy. It very well may be that in theory the renting crowd have a loud enough voice to be heard, but in practice do they really have the time/the feeling of having enough time to actually do it? Statistically, renters are lower income and tend to struggle to make ends meet. While making themselves heard would be beneficial, often they face other pressures, like needing to go to work, instead that diminish their ability to carry through with it.
	▲	treis 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Renters don't want to live next to a SRO/boarding house either.

▲

boringg 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Or alternatively trying to not have an area run rampant with too many people living in a house causing fire risks. Or god forbid trying to plan a city for density, resources, school locations.

Come on - zoning rules aren't some tool of repression. Sometimes they can be, but that isn't their raison d'etre.

▲

vidarh 3 days ago | parent [-]

If your housing pressure is so significant, or your poverty so extensive, that people are willing to live in unsafe, overcrowded situations, then trying to regulate that away is not very likely to improve things, but just push people into other negative situations, like illegal lets where they have little recourse to complain about problems without the risk of losing their home.

▲

boringg 3 days ago | parent [-]

One example - and very a extreme one to prove a point and not a very compelling one at that.

	▲	vidarh 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It wasn't remotely compelling to me, given the very obvious issue with it. Are you going to enlighten us about the other examples that are not affected by the same counter-argument?