[spenczar5]

Zoning is not the same as regulation. We shouldn’t be spewing carcinogenic PCBs anywhere.

Gigantic factories don’t want to be on small residential streets anyway because they cant fit the trucks in, so I think that argument cuts the other way - there are natural forces that deter that stuff.

[kmbfjr]

Zoning exists as a common protection of property values. You may have no problem living next to a solid waste disposal site, but if they built one next to a home you owned for twenty years, you might come to appreciate zoning.

Make no mistake, the protection is more often than not for the local tax base. There more than enough examples of zoning changes approved because the change offers a multiple of new tax revenue.

[zzzeek]

yet commercial zoning regulations exist for some reason. if "natural forces" prevent all negative outcomes, why do they exist ?

[spenczar5]

I don’t see how I claimed that natural forces prevent all negative outcomes. Sorry, you don’t seem interested in understanding each others’ views here…

[zzzeek]

your view seemed to be pretty clearly, "commercial zoning is unnecessary for the problem of building factories next to schools", based on your phrase "Gigantic factories don’t want to be on small residential streets anyway because they cant fit the trucks in, so I think that argument cuts the other way - there are natural forces that deter that stuff. ", meaning, "natural forces" would "deter" "that stuff", in this case "that stuff" being building factories next to schools. Sorry to be pedantic but I'm not quite sure what it is I'm not understanding.

if you're saying, "I was just arguing that one exact example, i didnt say natural forces help for all kinds of other problems that commercial zoning is meant to help", well OK, so I think commercial zoning is necessary for even a less-than-gigantic, but nevertheless distruptive, noisy, and polluting manufacturing facilities being built inappropriately close to schools and residential areas which may nevertheless still be on roads that are fairly or fully accessible by truck traffic". After all the truck traffic could enter in the front of the building's property and the back and sides of the building's property abut said schools and homes in any case. just go look at any commercial property with a lot of trucking and movement going on, it doesn't take much imagination to see how such a thing can and quite often does abut residential areas in any case.

[spenczar5]

Thanks for explaining more fully, this is helpful.

Yeah, I was trying to say that factories specifically want good road access, so zones aren't necessary for that one exact example - your second paragraph. Sorry for being unclear with the phrase "that stuff," which seems to have sent us in the wrong direction.

You say they may be constructed in residential areas anyway - like, maybe the roads are good enough in a neighborhood. I agree with this, but then I'm not seeing what the problem with the factory is. If it's noisy, impose noise restrictions. If it's polluting, impose pollution restrictions. But I don't have any beef with people making stuff as a matter of course.

My position is mostly that zones are the wrong tool for the job. I wish we were more forgiving of mixed-use neighborhoods. If someone wants to run a 3D printing shop next door to a school, more power to 'em.

[pessimizer]

If you think your example was an exception, what was the use of it? It seemed like evidence to support the claim that there are "natural forces that deter that stuff."

[blondin]

the GP made a valid point for zoning: a safe environment for schools. but this comment and the other one are veering away from that main point.

of course we don't want anything carcinogenic or that dangerous anywhere where people live.

that doesn't invalidate GP's main point that schools need safe and calm environments.