Zoning and Affordable Housing

[Armacing]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 10:06 AM, BnaBreaker said:

 there is much more we could be doing to help the situation than complaining about their stench.  

Agreed.  If we could repeal zoning laws and building codes and end the property tax, it would be far easier for people of lesser economic means to afford a small plot of land and build a rudimentary living structure for themselves.  One cannot advocate for restrictions on land use and high taxes in one breath and then turn around and lament the plight of homeless people in the next breath.  Well, one *could* do that, but it would be hypocritical.

[arkitekte]

49 minutes ago, Armacing said:

However, what we are certain of is that zoning laws and building codes are ultimately enforced via the use of police force (violence).  Thus, a supporter of zoning is someone who advocates the use of violence to prevent people from building houses they disapprove of.   In contrast, a homeless person who makes themselves not homeless by building a shanty out of salvaged materials is not advocating or inflicting violence on anyone.  Therefore, they have the moral high-ground - - they are the ones being violently oppressed by supporters of zoning/codes like yourself.

This is incorrect, but if you have examples, please provide them.

Zoning codes are enforced by city planning staff, and then their legal offices. After that, the district attorney's office. If compliance still hasn't been met, the property owner is sued. The closest thing to the use of police force would be a local law enforcement office (sheriff) serving a warrant for failure to show at a trail hearing. 

 

[Armacing]

1 minute ago, arkitekte said:

The closest thing to the use of police force would be a local law enforcement office (sheriff) serving a warrant for failure to show at a trail hearing. 

You have done a great job tracing through the chain-of-events, but you stopped short of reaching the final conclusion.  The warrant you mention above is a warrant for arrest.  If the homeless person doesn't want to be tried and/or imprisoned for building a shanty to live in, then he/she would not submit to arrest voluntarily.  Eventually the SWAT team would beat down their door at 6:00 on a Saturday morning and... voilà - violence.

[arkitekte]

3 hours ago, Armacing said:

You have done a great job tracing through the chain-of-events, but you stopped short of reaching the final conclusion.  The warrant you mention above is a warrant for arrest.  If the homeless person doesn't want to be tried and/or imprisoned for building a shanty to live in, then he/she would not submit to arrest voluntarily.  Eventually the SWAT team would beat down their door at 6:00 on a Saturday morning and... voilà - violence.

I’m assuming you’re trolling...

[CenterHill]

3 hours ago, Armacing said:

You have done a great job tracing through the chain-of-events, but you stopped short of reaching the final conclusion.  The warrant you mention above is a warrant for arrest.  If the homeless person doesn't want to be tried and/or imprisoned for building a shanty to live in, then he/she would not submit to arrest voluntarily.  Eventually the SWAT team would beat down their door at 6:00 on a Saturday morning and... voilà - violence.

These statements are absurd 

[PruneTracy]

All this talk about zoning has got me like

23 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

^^India slums??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

Edited January 30, 2019 by PruneTracy

[Bos2Nash]

^^India slums??

[Armacing]

33 minutes ago, arkitekte said:

I’m assuming you’re trolling...

Nope, not a troll.  I'm actually a Libertarian.  Can I assume from your response that you have no response to my argument and you concede the point?

[Mr_Bond]

5 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

Zoning and building codes have increased the safety and reliability of housing and other structures. The “burdens” you describe far outweigh the benefits of not having them. 

I think the point is that a cost/benefit analysis must be made for every government action, including zoning and building codes.  Also, rarely do we have an "all or nothing" decision regarding regulations.  Somewhere between no regulations and "over-regulation" lies our ideal state: enough regulation to provide safety but not so much that the detrimental effects are "too heavy."

I read @Armacing's point to be that "people of lesser economic means" are harmed by any factor that raises the cost of housing.  Therefore, if someone supports strong regulation and higher property taxes, they should know that they are also supporting a reduced supply of affordable housing and a higher population of the homeless.

Getting back on topic, one thing we can do to reduce homelessness in Nashville is to support efforts to keep property taxes low, allow smaller residences, and reduce restrictions on subleasing.

[Armacing]

46 minutes ago, CenterHill said:

These statements are absurd 

Absurd because you don't like them?  If you see something that is logically wrong, feel free to point it out.

[chris holman]

56 minutes ago, PruneTracy said:

All this talk about zoning has got me like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

 

[AronG]

Somebody should start a forum called, like, urbanplanetforsmallgovernmententhusiasts for whatever it is that keeps happening to these threads. Then maybe we could talk more about Nashville's urban development on this one.

[CenterHill]

2 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Absurd because you don't like them?  If you see something that is logically wrong, feel free to point it out.

I'm reacting to your suggestion that zoning regulations are enforced by a police state and violence, and that "thus, a supporter of zoning is someone who advocates the use of violence to prevent people from building houses they disapprove of".      Zoning regulations are not enforced that way, at least in the United States, and prisons are not full of developers and builders who do not follow codes.      Zoning regulations are enforced through a review and permitting process on the front end, and parties who don't like the regulations can challenge  or change them through municipal zoning boards and elected city councils.      You've taken your argument that zoning can work against lower income people to an absurd extreme.       I don't disagree that zoning and city planners can produce outcomes that disfavor, or don't encourage, affordable housing, but the solution is not to say all zoning is morally wrong and oppressive, the solution is to work for changes to zoning that promotes affordable housing.    

 

[Hey_Hey]

While it isn’t commonly enforced, all governmental power is ultimately backed up by the use of force (imprisonment) or forfeiture of property or both. Clearly, the planning commission and council don’t have the ability to arrest someone, but if you were to illegally build a structure, disobeyed a stop work order, and then refused to appear in court the judge could hold you in contempt of court. 

 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Hey_Hey

[Armacing]

4 minutes ago, CenterHill said:

    I don't disagree that zoning and city planners can produce outcomes that disfavor, or don't encourage, affordable housing, but the solution is not to say all zoning is morally wrong and oppressive, the solution is to work for changes to zoning that promotes affordable housing.    

 

I pretty much agree with your opinion about what we should do to help make housing more affordable.  The key is to keep things in perspective.  Sometimes public discussion can devolve into an echo chamber of people repeating whatever they hear on TV, so I like to throw out contrary opinions to advance the discussion conceptually.  So I did take it to the extreme, although it is a logical extreme, but I will concede that it rarely reaches that level of excitement in real life.

For the record, I am in favor of Tony's 60-story building.  I would enthusiastically argue for his right to build a 500-footer on any of the various pieces of land he owns around town, regardless of what the planning commission has in mind for the skyline.  So that is the flip side of the same argument, I think.

15 minutes ago, AronG said:

Somebody should start a forum called, like, urbanplanetforsmallgovernmententhusiasts for whatever it is that keeps happening to these threads. Then maybe we could talk more about Nashville's urban development on this one.

That is a cool idea.  Although, this thread had already taken a deep-dive into the Nashville homeless problem long before I came along.  I think it makes sense to discuss that topic, considering the unique nature of this proposal.  I would say even Tony G. framed the project within the context of the homeless issue.

[jmtunafish]

2 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

^^India slums??

No, a little bit of lawless China in British Hong Kong.

 

Edited January 30, 2019 by jmtunafish

[MLBrumby]

Gross!!! I wonder if our density fetishists see any limits there. 

[BnaBreaker]

1 hour ago, MLBrumby said:

Gross!!! I wonder if our density fetishists see any limits there. 

What's a "density fetishist?"

[Pdt2f]

2 hours ago, Hey_Hey said:

While it isn’t commonly enforced, all governmental power is ultimately backed up by the use of force (imprisonment) or forfeiture of property or both. Clearly, the planning commission and council don’t have the ability to arrest someone, but if you were to illegally build a structure, disobeyed a stop work order, and then refused to appear in court the judge could hold you in contempt of court. 

 

I don’t know why so many people in this thread are avoiding this obvious fact. @Armacing is completely correct about the end result of flaunting zoning regulations (although the SWAT busting down doors may be a little over-dramatic). I mean, most people don’t bring it that far because most people obey the bureaucrats who tell them what to do just to avoid fines and trouble, but keep ignoring those bureaucrats and you’ll end up in handcuffs. That isn’t controversial, that’s just an objective fact about how ruling over others involves physical force, even if it’s just the implicit, unspoken threat of it. 

I say these things as basically the opposite of a libertarian, being socially conservative and economically distributist/moderate/progressive, depending on the issue, so I’m not joining @Armacing for partisan or tribal reasons. But come on, this is just obvious. 

[arkitekte]

4 hours ago, Armacing said:

Nope, not a troll.  I'm actually a Libertarian.  Can I assume from your response that you have no response to my argument and you concede the point?

Not at all. 

I could prepare a response, but since you never gave an actual, documented example of violence by law enforcement being used to enforce building codes, a response to your original argument isn't warranted. You simply provided a hypothetical that never occurs. 

 

[Hey_Hey]

33 minutes ago, arkitekte said:

Not at all. 

I could prepare a response, but since you never gave an actual, documented example of violence by law enforcement being used to enforce building codes, a response to your original argument isn't warranted. You simply provided a hypothetical that never occurs. 

 

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2017/10/14/prosecutors-push-jail-for-disabled-vietnam-veteran-over-zoning-violations/

[Buildtall]

Is this the Paramount tower thread or some stupid zoning thread?  Shouldn’t this crap be in the coffee house?

[BnaBreaker]

16 minutes ago, Buildtall said:

Is this the Paramount tower thread or some stupid zoning thread?  Shouldn’t this crap be in the coffee house?

Why do people feel the need to police other peoples' conversations?   Lol... sorry, but I have to ask, because this happens all the time.  I'm not trying to be abrasive, it's just something I don't understand.  If you don't like zoning discussions, then don't be a part of zoning discussions.  Seems simple enough to me.  Why should everyone refrain from discussing a topic just because you don't enjoy it?  I'm not really taking part in this conversation either, but if some folks want to have a brief side discussion, as long as it isn't obscene or combative, then so what? 

Edited January 31, 2019 by BnaBreaker

[Buildtall]

Why beacause to get on here to read about Paramount tower and not some f....... zoning BS that’s why.

[BnaBreaker]

1 hour ago, Buildtall said:

Why beacause to get on here to read about Paramount tower and not some f....... zoning BS that’s why.

lol mmmmmkay... so you are confirming you are upset because people aren't discussing what you want them to discuss.   Bizarre, in my opinion, but I do appreciate your honesty.  It's clear that this upsets you.  My question still though is why?  In what way does a conversation unrelated to the Paramount Tower taking place in the Paramount Tower thread negatively affect you?   I mean it's not even like they're that off topic.  Do you get this upset whenever there is no discussion taking place within the Paramount Tower thread?  Because it's essentially the same thing, as far as you and your apparent desire to discuss the Paramount Tower are concerned. 

Edited January 31, 2019 by BnaBreaker