[lazide]

The US is a constitutional republic - currently, the federal gov’t could not do it.

However, almost every state already sets aside the level of control municipalities have explicitly.

Here is Texas’s

[https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/LG/htm/LG.211.ht...]

The US is one of a kind, as is every country I’ve run across.

Typically, zoning rules are the way they are (everywhere, and they are almost everywhere) because the benefits of them outweigh the perceived costs for the folks in power over that locality.

Changing them is not taken lightly because a lot of money is at stake and disruption is high.

Lots of people complain of course. But money talks, and bullshit walks.

I’m curious when things will switch from talk to actual change. Next 5ish-10ish years maybe as the boomers start aging out?

How do you think the interstate highway system got built?

[crazygringo]

> How do you think the interstate highway system got built?

The federal government appropriated a ton of land whether local people liked it or not.

Obviously the government didn't want to provoke massive unrest so it did some negotiating, but at the end of the day it did take whatever land it wanted, regardless of local opinion.

Also, regarding states ceding control of zoning to localities -- of course. That's just practical. But what the state gives, the state can take too. I'm talking about basic democratic principles, not what happens to be current law.

[lazide]

Nope - and it isn’t clear the federal gov’t even could. There would be hell to pay if they tried. The constitution allows some wiggle room, but ‘eminent domaining’ large swaths of state land is definitely not one of them! It might even cause a civil war, frankly.

you might find this interesting [https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/summer-1996/federal-ai...]

There was widespread national (bipartisan) support for it, a clear national military/security need, and it took the political capital of a very popular and trusted president to make it happen - and continuing support by his predecessors. Over 20+ years.

The federal gov’t basically proposed the overall plan, helped co-ordinate between states, and funded about half of it with the states using a cost share program (eventually increasing to 90% in some cases). The states did the actual building (and continue to do the maintenance too!) and things like right of ways, specific plans, eminent domain were handled by them.

No federal forced appropriation I’m aware of. Just co-operation and money.

[crazygringo]

I appreciate the details, and I'm not an expert on the history of the interstate.

But for the purposes of my argument, it's irrelevant whether the states did the eminent domain or the federal government. My point is this whole thread is that a higher power did, and localities couldn't do whatever they wanted. Your town couldn't veto the interstate passing through it.

And when the federal government is doing the planning and incentivizing with federal funds, the question of whether the eminent domain was "really" done by the federal government or the states is somewhat academic.

Again, my original point still stands completely: as a general democratic principle, when a higher level of government makes policy that conflicts with lower levels, the higher level wins. The US federal system happens to have more limits around this than most other democracies, but it's still a general principle.

[lazide]

The only reason the cities can do what they do now is because they are expressly granted the scope to do so by the same states.

The interstate detailed plans (which towns, for instance) was drafted by the states. If a state wanted to move around a town, they could (and did!). They had to roughly follow the federal plan and connect at specific points to get their share of the money, but there are tons of state level highways that have no Fed involvement - and places the states said ‘nope’ to the Fed money and did what they wanted.

It isn’t irrelevant if the states or the fed did the eminent domain - it’s a critical distinction. That it was the states is because the states are the ones who control their land and it’s usage - there is no (actual) higher power for zoning that isn’t already okay with it as-is!

That’s my point.

Now, the states can be convinced to change the rules of course (per state), but that is an entirely different situation no?

The supposed saviors have been the ones in charge the entire time!

[stale2002]

Ok, gotcha. So then it is perfectly fine for a state to overrule the local town zoning regulations, and give back housing freedom to the individual who owns the property.

Problem solved. A state can democratically ignore the local zoning requirements of the town, and force them to allow more housing.

[lazide]

They’ve not only always been able to do that, they explicitly had to go out of their way to make it any other way.

That it is delegated to the local towns is because that’s what they (as in the state and the towns) wanted.

And it’s likely to stay that way unless extreme effort is put into changing it, because otherwise the local folks will usually get very angry, as you’re taking away their self determination and ability to control their immediate surroundings. And everywhere is local somewhere.

So why don’t you ask the state legislatures? They’re the ones who have always been in control here on this topic.