Please continue to list examples of specific zoning ordinances you disagree with, in your argument that we get rid of all zoning ordinances. When you're done, I'll list some examples of specific people I disagree with, in my argument that we get rid of all people.
Your argument goes like this: "We have a problem that needs to be fixed. Zoning laws can fix the problem. Therefore, we need zoning laws."
If zoning laws are good, then why can't I build a house in an industrial zone? Is it because the factory next door is afraid that my crying baby will disrupt production? Or is the government just trying to protect me from making a bad decision? Do we really want to outlaw any behavior we think people don't want to do?
And if zoning laws are good, then why do they habitually force bars to provide abundant, free parking for their drinking customers and thereby induce drunk driving?
And if zoning laws are good, then why do they segregate the rich from the poor and thereby restrict social mobility and perpetuate the cycle of poverty?
I have worked with organizations that used similarly old stuff and would buy stacks of replacements. The problem was that nearly all the replacements were failing in the same way before any use.
"You're weak on logic, that's the trouble with you. You're like the guy in the story who was caught in a sudden shower and who ran to a grove of trees and got under one. He wasn't worried, you see, because he figured when one tree got wet through, he would just get under another one."
Why do you think you should have a voice in what candidate a party puts forward for election when you aren't a member of that party?
I agree. Why should you be allowed to vote in the primary if you haven't pledged allegiance to the party, or attended any party meetings, or paid dues, or taken any tests, or passed a background check?
Either the cost per a panel needs to go down by a lot, or the storage and transmission costs need to improve by a lot.
Or we need a smart grid that rewards people for conserving during times of high demand and low supply, and that creates the proper incentive for people to shift their energy-intensive tasks to times of high supply and low demand. The technology already exists, but the politics are taking their time to catch up.
This is why prisons should be penalized for recidivism, and paid not by the prisoner per month but by the prisoner rehabilitated. Let's make the profit motive work for us!
Infrastructure is a common good that all of society should pay for...
That argument is often used to rationalize paying for Infrastructure with regressive sales taxes. And because such taxes are not proportional to usage, we end up consuming more infrastructure than necessary, costing us more in taxes and environmental harm than we would otherwise pay.
So I would try to be more careful with that argument in the future.
Space requirements. A high-traffic roundabout requires more land area than a cross intersection.
That's partially correct, sometimes:
A roundabout may need more property within the actual intersection, but often take up less space on the streets approaching the roundabout. Because roundabouts can handle greater volumes of traffic more efficiently than signals, where drivers may need to line up to wait for a green light, roundabouts usually require fewer lanes approaching the intersection.
Greyhound service is available from my city to where I work 40 miles away... at 3X the price of me driving
Bullshit. The IRS says it costs 54 cents per mile to drive a car. I can take the Greyhound from San Diego to Oceanside 40 miles away for $6, which is only 15 cents per mile. Where does it cost $1.62 per mile to take the Greyhound?
Here's how the geography of aging works: Americans are most likely to move to the core cities in their early 20s, but this migration peters out as people enter the end of that often tumultuous decade. By their 30s, they move increasingly to the suburbs, as well as outside the major metropolitan areas (the 52 metropolitan areas with a population over a million in 2010).
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument goes like this: "We have a problem that needs to be fixed. Zoning laws can fix the problem. Therefore, we need zoning laws."
That kind of logic is an example of the Politician's syllogism.
You're saying that if something is illegal, it is automatically morally wrong. I disagree 150%.
If zoning laws are good, then why can't I build a house in an industrial zone? Is it because the factory next door is afraid that my crying baby will disrupt production? Or is the government just trying to protect me from making a bad decision? Do we really want to outlaw any behavior we think people don't want to do?
And if zoning laws are good, then why do they habitually force bars to provide abundant, free parking for their drinking customers and thereby induce drunk driving?
And if zoning laws are good, then why do they segregate the rich from the poor and thereby restrict social mobility and perpetuate the cycle of poverty?
"You're weak on logic, that's the trouble with you. You're like the guy in the story who was caught in a sudden shower and who ran to a grove of trees and got under one. He wasn't worried, you see, because he figured when one tree got wet through, he would just get under another one."
You can use that same argument to justify subsidizing private jets with tax money, "because people who fly in private jets are taxpayers."
Private jets for everyone!
Yes, you can.
I agree. Why should you be allowed to vote in the primary if you haven't pledged allegiance to the party, or attended any party meetings, or paid dues, or taken any tests, or passed a background check?
No, I'm not okay with anyone being modded down with a good argument one way or the other, whether it's about climate change or moon landings.
As will be anyone who questions if the moon landings actually happened.
Yes, financial types call that "leverage."
You're right. California is where great companies are born. Arizona and Texas is where they go to die.
Or we need a smart grid that rewards people for conserving during times of high demand and low supply, and that creates the proper incentive for people to shift their energy-intensive tasks to times of high supply and low demand. The technology already exists, but the politics are taking their time to catch up.
How do you think Google acquired the book to be scanned?
Do they really think manufacturers will price their cars below market equilibrium? Is there a price ceiling on electric cars in the Netherlands?
This is why prisons should be penalized for recidivism, and paid not by the prisoner per month but by the prisoner rehabilitated. Let's make the profit motive work for us!
That argument is often used to rationalize paying for Infrastructure with regressive sales taxes. And because such taxes are not proportional to usage, we end up consuming more infrastructure than necessary, costing us more in taxes and environmental harm than we would otherwise pay.
So I would try to be more careful with that argument in the future.
That's partially correct, sometimes:
Bullshit. The IRS says it costs 54 cents per mile to drive a car. I can take the Greyhound from San Diego to Oceanside 40 miles away for $6, which is only 15 cents per mile. Where does it cost $1.62 per mile to take the Greyhound?
Are there many stop signs that should not be replaced by yield signs or roundabouts?
A vehicle can go from 30 mph to 0 in 14 meters (46 feet).
And then the not-so-wealthy will move into their old apartments, and then the less-wealthy-than-that into theirs, and so on.
If you're saying that to justify rent control instead of higher wages for low paying jobs, I disagree 100%.
Yes, that's exactly what they tell themselves.
And yet it's true:
This city of 8,738 has bus service.
That's fine because people who live in the city heavily subsidize people who live in the suburbs.
You don't think young people are more likely than older people to move from rural areas to built-up civilization?