[stonemetal12]

Doesn't seem circular to me, they are against current zoning because it goes beyond what they consider "egregious". Lighter zoning that only dictated limits for sound levels and chemicals used would probably fit their definition of good zoning.

[anon291]

Limits like 'no metal dumps within 1000 feet of residential areas' are fine. They're not zoning, as no pre-existing zone is set up. According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning), zoning is when a city divides land up into zones and then dictates use. Limits like these are just externality captures. They're good and necessary for good urban life.

As an example, I was going to buy land in a rural town to develop into a nice little mini tiny home resort. It was going to be super cute. However, the zoning meant I couldn't do it. Not because there wasn't something just like it next door (like other resorts). No, just beacuse the letter next to the property in the registry wasn't the right one, and changing it would be a nightmare. Why? As long as I'm not dumping heavy metals onto neighbor's property, the water, or the air, why do these letters hold so much sway? Exactly why do we need 'recreational-only' property right next to an existing vacation business? It only serves to entrench existing competition, and make new ventures more difficult.

[yesUgotit]

Semantic wank aside; it’s not really up to one poster on HN to dictate what is and is not acceptable within a community.

Satisfying their definition is not an obligation.