Zoning has not been around for centuries. It began in the U.S. in 1916 and
began to take off in earnest after the Supreme Court upheld Euclid, Ohio's
ordinance in 1916, after it was challenged as an infringement on property
rights. But large parts of the country still have no zoning. Houston is famous
for this.
More to the point, you are relying on government, through zoning, to plan and
restrict other people's behavior to suit yourself. If you were consistently
libertarian, you would put up with the strip mall in the name of freedom. But
you are not consistent, on the one hand complaining about big government and on
the other relying on big government to restrict others' freedom.
Ironically, keeping uses separated, as you seem to favor, along with keeping
densities low, are the chief abuses of zoning through the decades. Among other
things, these serve to make biking for transportation very difficult. Smart
growth tries to allow developers -- the market -- to mix uses and provide more
compact development, while reining in traffic and giving the community a say in
the urban design. It's imperfect but more promising that traditional Euclidean
zoning or going Houston's route.
----- Original Message ----
From: Eric Westhagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Eric Sundquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; BikiesSubmissions <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 5:31:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bikies] Hitting a Nerve?
Dear Eric Sundquest,
Of course we have had zoning for centuries and we have another dozen methods of
controlling the "bundle of rights" which constitutes "fee-simple" ownership of
lands. To talk like your description is nonsense. In fact it is only when
GOVERNMENT suddenly changes the status of your residential neighborhood to
commercial to accommodate those who use the STATE as their "handmaiden" should
you be concerned with the strip maul or slaughter house next door. Government
has always been used for their total power to make such devastating changes.
Zoning would certainly protect you in your described situation, but just as
likely, zoning would have "suddenly created" the hazard you describe.
Also, I said in my previous post:-----<"The pros and cons of the competing
"institutions" of land controls in place in the USA could be discussed
endlessly. But whether or not the mission of BFW should be in the middle of
political land use IS THE QUESTION.">----------
Eric Westhagen
Eric Sundquist wrote:
So it's OK with you if I buy the houses next to you, tear them all and any
trees down, and put in a strip mall with fast food surrounded by asphalt? The
extra 5,000 car trips a day on your street won't be a problem for you? Super.
And maybe we'll throw in a hog rendering plant on the site for good measure.
Cause hogs got to be rendered somewhere, and since you don't mind the truck
traffic or stench, and are all in favor of the property owner being able to do
whatever he/she pleases on the land, we might as well do it there, where you
can be secure in avoiding a "synthetic planned society."
ES
----- Original Message ----
From: Eric Westhagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: BikiesSubmissions <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 4:21:28 PM
Subject: [Bikies] Hitting a Nerve?
Dear Group,
"Smart Land Use" seems to be rubbing a scab with those who are less
concerned with biking than they are about social planning and control of
society. Why should a bicycle group be engaged at redirecting land uses
into a synthetic "planned society?"
Etc.
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
