Great post Maxwell. This is probably the easiest, and cleanest, pathway to solving the housing crisis.
Not only will this alleviate, to some degree, the high cost of housing (and the wealth disparity that emanates from it), but it would allow our cities to become denser.
When this happens, we can take full advantage of scaling laws.
You’re missing the “public nuisance” aspect of the issue which goes back to a different ruling (Mugler vs Kansas) and is really the most important justification for zoning (and environmental regulation) per se. “Light and air” and the negative effects of shadows on adjacent properties and public streets were the critical factors in adoption of zoning in New York, for instance. (Until 1961 those zoning ordinances allowed for far more density than the market demanded, except for parts of Manhattan). The principle has been enormously abused of course, but would still stand if Ambler were repealed. And, I think, justifiably. It is the abuse that is the problem, not the principle.
Agreed. There is a whole cornucopia of SCOTUS case law related to this that enables zoning and land use regulation, Euclid just happens to be one of the most famous ones.
In theory I agree with much easier zoning. That said, as someone living in California, getting there from here is not something to be taken lightly.
The leaders of the state will allow unlimited immigrants in, they will allow repeated crime, and they will allow tent cities wherever. The last defense of Californians from reality are high priced neighborhoods with tough zoning to keep out everyone who can’t afford it. In effect, the civilized people of California protect themselves with over-priced real estate.
I guess my point is that there is a deeper logic to single family zoning.
You do realize that tent cities are a direct result of the housing shortage which is caused by exclusionary zoning. Regarding immigration, the only state which tracks crime stats of immigrants is Texas, and Texas found that immigrants are 42% LESS likely than naturally born citizens to commit crimes.
If you want to live in an exclusionary neighborhood, you're more than welcome to. Those are private gated communities. But outside of those, the government shouldn't be involved in separating the rich from the poor.
As I said in the start of my comment, I agree in theory to much easier zoning as it should lead to lower cost housing. This would indeed likely lead to less homeless. I also support increased levels of legal, well vetted immigrants.
However, I disagree with a few of your other statements. First, tent cities in public areas are the direct result of authorities which allow such mayhem to occur, rather than funneling the billions set aside for the problem (in Calif) to shelters and enforcement of reasonable vagrancy laws (which prohibit drug addicts from sleeping, selling sex and crapping on the sidewalks).
Second, the data I have seen is that legal immigrants (who have been vetted) do indeed have lower crime stats, as you state. That isn’t the issue I spoke to. My concern is the millions of illegal immigrants, who have substantially higher levels of crime, prison rates, and gang membership. California officials have repeatedly opened the door to illegal immigration, and many refuse to enforce laws against theft, drug use and vagrancy.
I spend time in neighborhoods with virtually no illegal immigrants, and ones where English is the second language. Guess which ones have all the bars on the windows?
I basically agree (in theory) that the government shouldn’t be involved with separating rich from poor. My comment is that absent the government doing its duty of holding the poor to levels of common decency let alone the law, responsible citizens are using the zoning laws to preserve our living standards.
We agree on liberating zoning-- the biggest part. I was actually slightly wrong on the stat I shared earlier. The actual stat is that ILLEGAL immigrants are 45% less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. (CATO Institute, Oct 2020).
Of course. An enormous part of middle class American life is devoted to buying one’s way out of the consequences of the Civil Rights Act.
People, not irrationally, do feel that living next to a Section 8 housing bloc is a matter of… health and safety. And since YIMBY types are largely also criminal justice “reform” types, that negative association isn’t going to disappear anytime soon.
Banning tent cities and open air drug markets seems like a clear safety issue and well within "police powers." But there's no justification for not allowing anything but single-family homes on privately-owned land.
I am not really arguing for justification. I am just saying that in a state where cities are NOT maintained by authorities, zoning laws are the last line of defense of millions.
The argument is that California with useless leadership and zoning laws is better than California with useless leadership and no zoning laws.
Though it seems to be that overturning Euclid will only put a limit on *new* zoning laws. Likely most of the restrictions on building housing have been in place for decades and there's no way to retroactively demand huge compensation for them (and thus get municipalities to abandon them).
The greatest barrier appears to be the overwhelming desire for a lack of change. (Also a reason to hate creative destruction.)
There's an understanding within us that everything changes. Every thought rewires our brain, we live always in the here-now space, and "nothing gold can stay". Yet much of architecture and/or neighborhood building revolves around permanent establishment.
Maybe all I'm saying is that the economic arguments are obvious, solid, and justice producing. And that argument doesn't win bc of feelings about conservation. Very peculiar.
Great post Maxwell. This is probably the easiest, and cleanest, pathway to solving the housing crisis.
Not only will this alleviate, to some degree, the high cost of housing (and the wealth disparity that emanates from it), but it would allow our cities to become denser.
When this happens, we can take full advantage of scaling laws.
You’re missing the “public nuisance” aspect of the issue which goes back to a different ruling (Mugler vs Kansas) and is really the most important justification for zoning (and environmental regulation) per se. “Light and air” and the negative effects of shadows on adjacent properties and public streets were the critical factors in adoption of zoning in New York, for instance. (Until 1961 those zoning ordinances allowed for far more density than the market demanded, except for parts of Manhattan). The principle has been enormously abused of course, but would still stand if Ambler were repealed. And, I think, justifiably. It is the abuse that is the problem, not the principle.
Agreed. There is a whole cornucopia of SCOTUS case law related to this that enables zoning and land use regulation, Euclid just happens to be one of the most famous ones.
In theory I agree with much easier zoning. That said, as someone living in California, getting there from here is not something to be taken lightly.
The leaders of the state will allow unlimited immigrants in, they will allow repeated crime, and they will allow tent cities wherever. The last defense of Californians from reality are high priced neighborhoods with tough zoning to keep out everyone who can’t afford it. In effect, the civilized people of California protect themselves with over-priced real estate.
I guess my point is that there is a deeper logic to single family zoning.
You do realize that tent cities are a direct result of the housing shortage which is caused by exclusionary zoning. Regarding immigration, the only state which tracks crime stats of immigrants is Texas, and Texas found that immigrants are 42% LESS likely than naturally born citizens to commit crimes.
If you want to live in an exclusionary neighborhood, you're more than welcome to. Those are private gated communities. But outside of those, the government shouldn't be involved in separating the rich from the poor.
As I said in the start of my comment, I agree in theory to much easier zoning as it should lead to lower cost housing. This would indeed likely lead to less homeless. I also support increased levels of legal, well vetted immigrants.
However, I disagree with a few of your other statements. First, tent cities in public areas are the direct result of authorities which allow such mayhem to occur, rather than funneling the billions set aside for the problem (in Calif) to shelters and enforcement of reasonable vagrancy laws (which prohibit drug addicts from sleeping, selling sex and crapping on the sidewalks).
Second, the data I have seen is that legal immigrants (who have been vetted) do indeed have lower crime stats, as you state. That isn’t the issue I spoke to. My concern is the millions of illegal immigrants, who have substantially higher levels of crime, prison rates, and gang membership. California officials have repeatedly opened the door to illegal immigration, and many refuse to enforce laws against theft, drug use and vagrancy.
I spend time in neighborhoods with virtually no illegal immigrants, and ones where English is the second language. Guess which ones have all the bars on the windows?
I basically agree (in theory) that the government shouldn’t be involved with separating rich from poor. My comment is that absent the government doing its duty of holding the poor to levels of common decency let alone the law, responsible citizens are using the zoning laws to preserve our living standards.
We agree on liberating zoning-- the biggest part. I was actually slightly wrong on the stat I shared earlier. The actual stat is that ILLEGAL immigrants are 45% less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. (CATO Institute, Oct 2020).
Of course. An enormous part of middle class American life is devoted to buying one’s way out of the consequences of the Civil Rights Act.
People, not irrationally, do feel that living next to a Section 8 housing bloc is a matter of… health and safety. And since YIMBY types are largely also criminal justice “reform” types, that negative association isn’t going to disappear anytime soon.
Banning tent cities and open air drug markets seems like a clear safety issue and well within "police powers." But there's no justification for not allowing anything but single-family homes on privately-owned land.
I am not really arguing for justification. I am just saying that in a state where cities are NOT maintained by authorities, zoning laws are the last line of defense of millions.
The argument is that California with useless leadership and zoning laws is better than California with useless leadership and no zoning laws.
Nobody is arguing for no zoning laws! Nullifying California's single family zoning won't loosen their laws against tent cities.
Never mind.
This is a great point! Is there anyone trying to bring this type of case before the court?
Though it seems to be that overturning Euclid will only put a limit on *new* zoning laws. Likely most of the restrictions on building housing have been in place for decades and there's no way to retroactively demand huge compensation for them (and thus get municipalities to abandon them).
Great explainer.
The greatest barrier appears to be the overwhelming desire for a lack of change. (Also a reason to hate creative destruction.)
There's an understanding within us that everything changes. Every thought rewires our brain, we live always in the here-now space, and "nothing gold can stay". Yet much of architecture and/or neighborhood building revolves around permanent establishment.
Maybe all I'm saying is that the economic arguments are obvious, solid, and justice producing. And that argument doesn't win bc of feelings about conservation. Very peculiar.