Opinion: Ending Single-Family Detached Zoning Benefits Everyone

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Umm, this doesn't address what I said. It's a total non-sequitur. You're advocating for the elimination of SFH-exclusive neighborhoods. You've made that very clear.

I'm advocating for the elimination of SFH-exclusive zoning. The constitutionality of zoning in general is somewhat questionable, but some level of oversight of private property usage does serve the public interest. But SFH zoning is blatant overreach. It's just been so normalized that we're de-sensitized to how much of an intrusion it is to the concept of private property.

[Gordo]

Elimination of SFH zoning does not limit a developer from buying a plot of land, subdividing it, and either establishing an HOA that prevents buyers from changing the look or just making the whole thing a "condo" development even if it looks like single family detached housing.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

...how much of an intrusion it is to the concept of private property.

Ironic.

In the American popular imagination, a SFH is the very essence of private property, and if recent real estate trends are any indication, they are more popular than ever.

There's a bit of cognitive dissonance here, as you are arguing for private property in the abstract, but in practice advocating for shoving communal property into areas of private homes, the neighbors be damned.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Ironic.

In the American popular imagination, a SFH is the very essence of private property, and if recent real estate trends are any indication, they are more popular than ever.

There's a bit of cognitive dissonance here, as you are arguing for private property in the abstract, but in practice advocating for shoving communal property into areas of private homes, the neighbors be damned.

If they're more popular than ever then they don't need zoning laws to protect them, lol. It is literally antithetical to the concept of the free market if this type of development can't exist without being codified by law. I don't understand why that is so controversial.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If they're more popular than ever then they don't need zoning laws to protect them, lol. It is literally antithetical to the concept of the free market if this type of development can't exist without being codified by law. I don't understand why that is so controversial.

You don't understand the concept of a group of individuals protecting their common interests? Why have any laws at all?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Elimination of SFH zoning does not limit a developer from buying a plot of land, subdividing it, and either establishing an HOA that prevents buyers from changing the look or just making the whole thing a "condo" development even if it looks like single family detached housing.

Right, but it would allow your neighbor to sell their home to someone who is gonna put a separate family unit adjacent to your back yard, which probably isn't popular with most SFH owners.

I'd be pretty pissed if I moved to some sprawly SFH area and suddenly my neighbor's back yard is being transformed into a dorm for laborers or granny or random transients.

[mhays]

You might be confused. This doesn't require you to do anything with your property. It merely expands what property owners are ALLOWED to do.

For example, if ADUs are now allowed, you don't have to build one. But your neighbor can if they want and have the wherewithal.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Elimination of SFH zoning does not limit a developer from buying a plot of land, subdividing it, and either establishing an HOA that prevents buyers from changing the look or just making the whole thing a "condo" development even if it looks like single family detached housing.

Unnecessary HOAs, condos that look like SFHs... yeah that sounds... lovely.

Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mhays

You might be confused. This doesn't require you to do anything with your property. It merely expands what property owners are ALLOWED to do.

For example, if ADUs are now allowed, you don't have to build one. But your neighbor can if they want and have the wherewithal.

What's the confusion? SFH owners likely don't want a bunch of transients in their back yard. I wouldn't want it either. That defeats the whole purpose of SFH (privacy, space, quiet). So if my neighbors would be allowed do build a dorm in their back yard, I'd be harmed, and the central appeal of the SFH lifestyle would be lost.

This is a solution looking for a problem, BTW. Existing SFH owners aren't the problem. If you want more units, you don't need to touch SFH areas. You could build a million more units in Manhattan, Brooklyn and SF without blinking. There's no reason to make sprawl even crappier by turning it into sprawl tenements.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

You don't understand the concept of a group of individuals protecting their common interests? Why have any laws at all?

They aren't protecting their common interests. They are being limited in how they can use their own property.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

They aren't protecting their common interests. They are being limited in how they can use their own property.

They're protecting their common neighborhood interests. It's like landmarking a neighborhood in NYC, or enforcing strict design guidelines in the Hamptons or Santa Barbara. It limits your property usage, but it's also understandable why people would prefer such communal limits.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Unnecessary HOAs, condos that look like SFHs... yeah that sounds... lovely.

Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

They already exist.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Unnecessary HOAs, condos that look like SFHs... yeah that sounds... lovely.

Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

Private contracts instead of government mandates? Seems like a common thing we do everywhere else (including in housing right now...).

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Crawford

What's the confusion? SFH owners likely don't want a bunch of transients in their back yard. I wouldn't want it either. That defeats the whole purpose of SFH (privacy, space, quiet). So if my neighbors would be allowed do build a dorm in their back yard, I'd be harmed, and the central appeal of the SFH lifestyle would be lost.

This is a solution looking for a problem, BTW. Existing SFH owners aren't the problem. If you want more units, you don't need to touch SFH areas. You could build a million more units in Manhattan, Brooklyn and SF without blinking. There's no reason to make sprawl even crappier by turning it into sprawl tenements.

A "dorm"?! We're talking (in my city) one or two housing units. That's if the lot is at least 5,000 square feet iirc.

So what is it? Anyone with less money than you is a problem?

[Gordo]

If you eliminate the zoning, that simply allows each owner to make their own decision. If you live across the street and don't want your neighbor to build something, you'd be free to pay them some amount to convince them not to build something. You could even, you know, draw up some kind of legal agreement purchasing that right...

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

They already exist.

Yeah, no shit, and they're awful, and an affront to actual private property rights.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Yeah, no shit, and they're awful, and an affront to actual private property rights.

lol wut

They're literally a private agreement that each person signs voluntarily. Unlike zoning laws.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Gordo

lol wut

They're literally a private agreement that each person signs voluntarily. Unlike zoning laws.

Enjoy your HOA then

I'll take an organically developed SFH neighborhood with zoning laws over an HOA any day of the week.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Yeah, no shit, and they're awful, and an affront to actual private property rights.

But it's exactly what you want? lol

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Yeah, no shit, and they're awful, and an affront to actual private property rights.

Dictating what others can and can't do on their own private property isn't a right of property ownership - it's totalitarianism.