All zoning is exclusionary to my knowledge. That's the entire point. It's not necessary but it exists because it exists. And, it's sticky. It was established most likely when the entire city was raw land and undeveloped; so it served as a plan for development. There was no NIMBY because people were building their BY. Because there was a plan, you could decide where you wanted to build that BY.
Once you have developed the land, raised family, lived in a house for decade(s), and the city around you develops and changes. Now, your property maybe better utilized as a multifamily complex or a nuclear reactor, or anything really. But, it's your home and you shouldn't be taxed out of it. Rezoning as a process is may difficult and probably should be. There's a lot of stakeholders/neighbors who are impacted by a change. They should have some say. It just so happens that those people who bought a single family house in a single family neighborhood tend to prefer it to stay that way so they get called NIMBY but it's a completely rational perspective to have if you were in their shoes. Thus, an introduction of this tax only serves to displace the current owners who can not afford the new tax bill and does nothing to change the actual zoning. So the result is, richer people with bigger tax-bill budgets move in and your even further into the NIMBYism trap not even realizing you're in a zoning trap.
If you open up the zoning (and perhaps the building restrictions), the best and highest uses can actually prevail.
That's not really true. Zoning was usually set up later. Often the existing buildings wouldn't be permitted by the zoning rules but were "grandfathered in". (If we made this practice illegal and insisted that you have to demolish anything that doesn't fit the new zoning laws, that might be one way to keep zoning laws sane). Even if the final state of those people's buildings is legal, often the process by which they were built wouldn't be.
> Once you have developed the land, raised family, lived in a house for decade(s), and the city around you develops and changes. Now, your property maybe better utilized as a multifamily complex or a nuclear reactor, or anything really. But, it's your home and you shouldn't be taxed out of it. Rezoning as a process is may difficult and probably should be. There's a lot of stakeholders/neighbors who are impacted by a change. They should have some say. It just so happens that those people who bought a single family house in a single family neighborhood tend to prefer it to stay that way so they get called NIMBY but it's a completely rational perspective to have if you were in their shoes.
Guess they should've had the foresight to get born earlier? It seems absurdly unfair to say that zoning set up for a population that was half the size should bind the current generation. I get that it's individually rational to want to pull the ladder up behind you, but it's disgusting. (And for the "people shouldn't be forced out of their home" crowd: my generation gets forced out of our homes every 2-3 years because we can't afford to own and have to rent. So I won't shed any tears for boomers getting forced out of their home once in several decades)
Plus, here in the US the vast majority of land ownership entailed forcing native peoples out of their homes.
No disagreement there, I'm no expert but think it just wasn't as formal as we current have it. But informally it still roughly matches how we currently do it (residential areas, commercial area, industrial areas, etc). Building codes, technologies, materials, etc change much more frequently which is a bigger reason that old buildings wouldn't exist today. I happen to reside in a part of the US that has seen massive sprawl and growth in just the past ~50-70 years, so it's been mostly planned. I can currently see how the next generation of exurbs will be developed and I think it's been that way for at least 30 years.
> Guess they should've had the foresight to get born earlier? It seems absurdly unfair to say that zoning set up for a population that was half the size should bind the current generation. I get that it's individually rational to want to pull the ladder up behind you, but it's disgusting. (And for the "people shouldn't be forced out of their home" crowd: my generation gets forced out of our homes every 2-3 years because we can't afford to own and have to rent. So I won't shed any tears for boomers getting forced out of their home once in several decades)
Are we out of land in the US? (I'm assuming you're in US). Why do you need that specific piece of land that the person you are displacing already owns? Job/commute, convenience, etc are unacceptable answers in my book. Employers can and should be dispersing, you're likely broadly employable and could find work elsewhere. They could put their office elsewhere. But you're choosing to live in an area that you can't afford to own (and they're choosing to office out of a location that their employees can't live in). Ignoring those or pushing them on the current land owners makes no sense. Curious if you have any evidence that rents are not market driven? It's my opinion your generation is forcing each other's rents up by refusing to move to a more affordable location. When a boomer bought that house, decades ago, it probably wasn't as desirable of a location as it is today. I happen to believe you are more in control of the entire situation than you care to admit but would rather stay put and blame the boomers or change the rules because you don't like the cards you were dealt. The "shed no tears" thing goes both ways, but they did get there first and they do already own their house, so it's an uphill battle for you.
