|
|
|
|
|
|
by soulofmischief
1317 days ago
|
|
|
No amount of justification can uphold such federal zoning legislation. The traditional model is that parent governments offer benefits which embedded governments can access by adhering to certain mandates. This is the exact situation now where cities in California are already ignoring housing regulations. Moving zoning responsibilities up the chain of command won't fix this, unless your plan is to send in the National Guard. We need to fix the broken relationship between state and city. I don't understand where federal government comes into this. |
|
|
Housing is interstate commerce, and the federal government has overruled local zoning rules in the past (satellite dishes in Chicago of all things). It appears to be quite legal, constitutional and precedented.
> Moving zoning responsibilities up the chain of command won't fix this, unless your plan is to send in the National Guard. We need to fix the broken relationship between state and city. I don't understand where federal government comes into this.
The ideal law would be similar to Japan's model: the federal government says housing is permitted in all zones and sets some consistent rules about what you can build and where. This framework would remove the silly arbitrary rules set up by councils to preclude reasonable land use in lieu of clear, consistent federal rules. Federal government sets the framework, municipalities execute.
Worth a read if you're curious what I'd like to see. [1]
[1] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html