4 ms·

Federal intervention? The state should manage itself.

by pylua 2y ago

zbrozek 2y ago
That would be great but it's not going to be swift or sufficient. The thing that would really do the trick is overturning Euclid v. Ambler, and really only SCOTUS or Congress can do that.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  That case was more about separating industrial and residential land. Zoning is a good thing but putting a cap on development within a zone is what has caused these issues with prices and a lack of housing supply. Everywhere that you'd consider first world has some zoning. Tokyo too of course; you can't just open a landfill next to your neighbors house for example, but at the same time there's a lot of by right development that adds housing capacity if the area can handle height with respect to the available infrastructure.
  - zbrozek 2y ago
    The case was about building residential in a residential area. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep272/usrep272365/usrep272365.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Read it again: "The recent industrial development of the City of Cleveland, following the railroad lines, has already reached the Village and to some extent extends over into it. In its obvious course, this industrial expansion will soon absorb the area in the Village for industrial enterprises. It is in restraint of this prospect that the ordinance seeks to operate. In effect it erects a dam to hold back the flood of industrial development and thus to preserve a rural character in portions of the Village which, under the operation of natural economic laws, would be devoted most profitably to industrial undertakings. This, the evidence shows, destroys value without compensation to the owners of lands who have acquired and are holding them for industrial uses." "...the ordinance of its own force operates greatly to reduce the value of appellee's lands and destroy their marketability for industrial, commercial and residential uses; and the attack is directed, not against any specific provision or provisions, but against the ordinance as an entirety."
- greenie_beans 2y ago
  we need to repeal the faircloth amendment.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > The thing that would really do the trick is overturning Euclid v. Ambler, and really only SCOTUS or Congress can do that. Congress really can’t (the existing federal judiciary would be more likely to find any federal legislative attempt to limit local zoning a violation of the 10th Amendment than to give it effect); SCOTUS could, either directly or collaterally, but it seems unlikely (for one thing, to even make it to the merits you’d probably need someone who took ownership when the property wasn’t subject to zoning restrictions and where a claim wouldn’t be time-barred given the length of time since the zoning rule was enacted; its not 1922 anymore, and the problem isn’t new zoning.) Congress could propose an amendment to overturn it – or to more directly limit zoning – but it would take a supermajority of states to sign on to give it effect, and if you had that, well, you’d probably have a supermajority of states limiting zoning without federal intervention, too.

Federal intervention? The state should manage itself.

by pylua 2y ago

Federal intervention? The state should manage itself.

That would be great but it's not going to be swift or sufficient. The thing that would really do the trick is overturning Euclid v. Ambler, and really only SCOTUS or Congress can do that.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
That case was more about separating industrial and residential land. Zoning is a good thing but putting a cap on development within a zone is what has caused these issues with prices and a lack of housing supply. Everywhere that you'd consider first world has some zoning. Tokyo too of course; you can't just open a landfill next to your neighbors house for example, but at the same time there's a lot of by right development that adds housing capacity if the area can handle height with respect to the available infrastructure.
- zbrozek 2y ago
  The case was about building residential in a residential area. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep272/usrep272365/usrep272365.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Read it again: "The recent industrial development of the City of Cleveland, following the railroad lines, has already reached the Village and to some extent extends over into it. In its obvious course, this industrial expansion will soon absorb the area in the Village for industrial enterprises. It is in restraint of this prospect that the ordinance seeks to operate. In effect it erects a dam to hold back the flood of industrial development and thus to preserve a rural character in portions of the Village which, under the operation of natural economic laws, would be devoted most profitably to industrial undertakings. This, the evidence shows, destroys value without compensation to the owners of lands who have acquired and are holding them for industrial uses." "...the ordinance of its own force operates greatly to reduce the value of appellee's lands and destroy their marketability for industrial, commercial and residential uses; and the attack is directed, not against any specific provision or provisions, but against the ordinance as an entirety."
greenie_beans 2y ago
we need to repeal the faircloth amendment.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> The thing that would really do the trick is overturning Euclid v. Ambler, and really only SCOTUS or Congress can do that. Congress really can’t (the existing federal judiciary would be more likely to find any federal legislative attempt to limit local zoning a violation of the 10th Amendment than to give it effect); SCOTUS could, either directly or collaterally, but it seems unlikely (for one thing, to even make it to the merits you’d probably need someone who took ownership when the property wasn’t subject to zoning restrictions and where a claim wouldn’t be time-barred given the length of time since the zoning rule was enacted; its not 1922 anymore, and the problem isn’t new zoning.) Congress could propose an amendment to overturn it – or to more directly limit zoning – but it would take a supermajority of states to sign on to give it effect, and if you had that, well, you’d probably have a supermajority of states limiting zoning without federal intervention, too.