I'm curious what changes to the zoning code most people are proposing that are so crazy?
Yeah, I'm sure voters wouldn't mind that....then what's the harm in upzoning everything to R6?
I'm curious what changes to the zoning code most people are proposing that are so crazy?
Yeah, I'm sure voters wouldn't mind that....then what's the harm in upzoning everything to R6?
Excellent point. Just pick out the hyperbolic thing that fishmanpet said and address that and you can ignore everything else talked about.I'm curious what changes to the zoning code most people are proposing that are so crazy?Yeah, I'm sure voters wouldn't mind that....then what's the harm in upzoning everything to R6?
Either there's pent up demand being held back by zoning, or there's not. If you really think that there's no pent up demand then what's the point of R1 zoning?I'm curious what changes to the zoning code most people are proposing that are so crazy?Yeah, I'm sure voters wouldn't mind that....then what's the harm in upzoning everything to R6?
Yes, I have unironically advocated for upzoning everything to R6. But I'm refuting a specific argument here. Twincitizen is explicitly stating that there is no widespread pent up demand for upzoning. That's the claim. I'm refuting that specific claim. I'm asking the question, that if there's no demand, what's the harm in upzoning? You're actually saying "I agree with Twincitizen that there's little pent up demand being held back by zoning, but by upzoning you would release pent up demand (that I just said didn't exist)"FMP,
Thanks for throwing in the unnecessary insult.
While you may not have been literally suggesting that above, it doesn't take much digging around the forum to find people who are in fact arguing for things very much in the same vein, or for eliminating zoning altogether. You've advocated for such things yourself.
There are lots of spots with R1 zoning where you probably could, in fact, upzone to R6 and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. Nobody would find it worth their while to go through the trouble to assemble enough lots to build a big project in a low demand neighborhood. But what if you're the poor SOB who just happened to have somebody drop a six story apartment building right next to their single family house?
Lack of good development sites that is somehow completely unrelated to lack of properties with permissive zoning.^This seems to be, at least in part, taking twincitizen's argument and making it more extreme. A reasonable read of his comment is that he contends market forces and lack of good development sites are the issue. He did not say "IN NO WAY IS ZONING IMPEDING ANYTHING EVERRRRRRR"
Sure, but the point of being able to add a lot more units isn't reducing land costs.. Land costs are a relatively small part of the housing affordability problem, and a change like this won't actually bring housing land costs down very much.
.
It's fine if you're skeptical. I'd just like to point out that not every issue needs to have a "both sides are equal" qualification. I don't think you believe that, either. You (personally) don't give the same weight to people arguing we should close our borders to immigrants/refugees, right? You're willing to admit there is an actually complicated discussion around immigration involving public costs to re-settle people, house them train them, deal with proven first-generation crime rates that are (sometimes, but not always) slightly higher than the general population's, etc. But that also it's morally the right thing to do and in the long-run it's great for our diversity and economy. And, I'm guessing here, but you don't have a lot of compassion or respect for the people who boil down their argument to a few stats or specific impacts to them or their community (or tax rate) because their position lacks, among other things, nuance. I could say the same about energy policy (actual policy work vs "the sun doesn't always shine and the wind isn't always blowing!" arguments), climate change (where some majority of conservatives are using their and their constituents' belief that it **isn't even a real thing** to frame the debate) or any other complicated policy areas where both sides are definitely not equivalent.I'm immediately skeptical of any argument that ends with, "my side is reasonable and willing to have 'tough' discussions but whoa that other side is all crazies that only cares about themselves and they are ignorant to boot."
What I'm objecting to is your (and others') apparent opinion that almost everyone opposed to your ideas holds that position out of selfishness or ignorance and that things the other side values (yes, character!) should be simply dismissed out of hand.It's fine if you're skeptical. I'd just like to point out that not every issue needs to have a "both sides are equal" qualification. I don't think you believe that, either. You (personally) don't give the same weight to people arguing we should close our borders to immigrants/refugees, right?I'm immediately skeptical of any argument that ends with, "my side is reasonable and willing to have 'tough' discussions but whoa that other side is all crazies that only cares about themselves and they are ignorant to boot."
Yep. For a quick primer on the effectiveness of the "you're dumb" argument, simply navigate to your favorite news source.What I'm objecting to is your (and others') apparent opinion that almost everyone opposed to your ideas holds that position out of selfishness or ignorance and that things the other side values (yes, character!) should be simply dismissed out of hand.
If you're really willing to have complex conversations you have to allow and consider those viewpoints. Otherwise you're being intellectually dishonest. Just at least try to understand the other side. Sit down for a few rounds of coffee with someone who disagrees with you, even if they seem crazy to you.
Serious question. Do you "allow and consider" the viewpoints that all non-whites are less than human? Do you "allow and consider" the viewpoint that the sun goes down so solar panels are bad, or that we'll use up all the wind so wind turbines are bad? Do you "allow and consider" the viewpoint that Mexicans are thugs and rapists coming to destroy our country? Do you "allow and consider" the viewpoint that Jews and Muslims are subhuman trash trying to destroy civilization as we know it?What I'm objecting to is your (and others') apparent opinion that almost everyone opposed to your ideas holds that position out of selfishness or ignorance and that things the other side values (yes, character!) should be simply dismissed out of hand.It's fine if you're skeptical. I'd just like to point out that not every issue needs to have a "both sides are equal" qualification. I don't think you believe that, either. You (personally) don't give the same weight to people arguing we should close our borders to immigrants/refugees, right?I'm immediately skeptical of any argument that ends with, "my side is reasonable and willing to have 'tough' discussions but whoa that other side is all crazies that only cares about themselves and they are ignorant to boot."
If you're really willing to have complex conversations you have to allow and consider those viewpoints. Otherwise you're being intellectually dishonest. Just at least try to understand the other side. Sit down for a few rounds of coffee with someone who disagrees with you, even if they seem crazy to you.
I'm confused. What part of my post indicated to you that the people interested in zoning reform (in the up direction) aren't the ones doing this? That there aren't tons of conversations with family members, friends, strangers, people on city/county/etc boards or committees we sit on, people with differing views on Twitter or Facebook (who ban anyone with different opinions than them), people we encounter from advocacy orgs, etc happening already? The part where I talk about how even though I don't believe things like neighborhood character should outweigh letting more people live in a city/neighborhood/whatever (not that it doesn't exist or should be dismissed out of hand!) but that I recognize there are many different viewpoints and so we come *to the table* with a pretty tame (in the scheme of what's technically possible in 2017 America) proposal like allowing 4 story buildings more (or different) places than we do today.If you're really willing to have complex conversations you have to allow and consider those viewpoints. Otherwise you're being intellectually dishonest. Just at least try to understand the other side. Sit down for a few rounds of coffee with someone who disagrees with you, even if they seem crazy to you.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest