Respectfully:
Yes, those would no doubt (1) be too large to fit on a lot and (2) be too loud. So they would violate the generalized community rules.
Any use that does not violate those community rules (for instance, a small chicken farm) should be permitted. Any use that does violate those community rules (for instance, a farm that is too loud) should be excluded.
The rule needs to be about externalities, not chickens.
1 Like
Well said.
You can SMELL a chicken farm from a long ways away.
I don’t know about that.
There are considerations to make for development.
To build an apartment vs a single family home…is the frontage capable of handling the additional traffic? Does the site allow for parking of 12 vehicles? Is the local elementary school up to the task of more kids? Does the additional height adversely affect the character of the street?
Etc…
no, its barely a hobby
1 Like
So then we should have rules about externalities, not chicken farms. Some chicken farms - small ones - are fine.
That is a product of big government, not small government. The reason there are so many cookie-cutter developments in cities is because it is so onerous (in both time and money) to get permit approvals from the municipalities. Once a structural plan is approved, it saves a developer immensely to just build more of the same thing even if they are not the original developer who fought his way through the process. My daughter’s neighborhood in Ballard for example, is full of hundreds of five-story apartment buildings that are virtually identical to one another except for some minor exterior cosmetics. They were built over many years by many different developers using an approved plan that had been created by one of them those many years ago. City bureaucracy is often much worse than State and Federal bureaucracy.
1 Like
Nice chart! What do you mean by restrictive development laws? Isn’t mostly because the builders can get 3 times more for a 3,000 sq. ft. house vs a 1,500 sq. ft. house?
There is much truth to that. There is very little demand for 1000 sf houses and much more demand for 3000 sf houses. Demand drives supply, and ultimately cost.
I grew up in a ~ 600 sf house. My brother and sister and I shared a 6x7 ft bunk room. There is no way I would have bought a house that small to raise my family in.
Jesus dude that’s smaller than my trailer. And my trailer is basically a fancy version of those FEMA emergency trailers that got popular after Katrina. People liked them so much that manufacturers started making premium versions. But it’s a lot smaller than a normal single wide 16x80 that the market mostly standardized on in the 80s.
hobbies are not farms
we ain;t eurotrash
yeah you say that like it means something (besides a cute adolescent rjoiner)
Pit is
Why, in the heck, do we insist on chewing up vast amounts of land?
Free market:
“I want to build 16 houses really close. Save money, provide an afofreable marketable product.”
Stalin (and the modern US Karens):
“Free markets are stupid. The State knows best. We must build one and only one kind of house and build them by the millions. NO colored Chrismans lights. All trash cans must be mauve, all mailboxes must be taupe and all homes must be like the one and only big-brother state-approved model. We HATE open land and must chew up as much as possible.”
you say that like I give a damn what eurotrash do. There’s an American dream, it ain’t living in an apartment.
And so . . . I don’t propose outlawing any type of home.
If people want something or if a bulder thinks they might, he should be free to build it.
But if you look at your local zoning laws, (any area zoning laws) they are all about
- Here mst be only sjlge famly homes, and
- they must not touch they must be 50 feet from the back propery line as 25 feet from the side property lines, and
- there must be no more that x homes per acre and
- you canto operate a business unless the land is zoned for that ad
- you cannot live in the back room of your buiness
- etc.
.
.
.
By contrast the was a time when people did not say
“America is that land of the unfree. If you want fredom go back to Europe.”
We were considered a land of opportunity, and
we did not make a hobby of crapping on the next generation.
Left to their freedom,
left to do whatever the free market dictated,
Americans built:
- large homes,
- small homes,
- homes that touched each other,
- multifamily homes
- homes with business right inside and
- businesses with homes right inside.
We’ve zoned so much for so long that we’ve convinced people the zoned, government-dictated development patterns are actually the free-market American Dream.
Something like 85% of the zoned land in the United States is zoned exclusively for single-family homes. Not small businesses, not a quadplex, a single family home… That must be 20 feet from the front of the lot, 10 feet from the side, 20 from the back, no taller than two stories, with only 30% of the front being garage(!), and of course you can have all the animals you want as long as their not producing any food for you.
Then we sit back and wonder why housing is so expensive, why the dense mixed-use downtowns of older cities can’t be replicated, and why the grand list isn’t growing fast enough.
1 Like
These days, people --literally–
- drive a quarter mile through cul-de-sac hell and
- get on the interstate driving past mall sprawl
Just to pay a $10 entrance fee and visit one of those old towns
Where they overpay for a meal and, (after taking a selfie), wonder aloud “Gee I wish towns were still like this. I bet people even knew their neighbors.”
Towns where people had freedom are now a "cultural treasure of our forgotten past" and “need to be protected” like trees in a tree museum. ---- I’ve got a better idea!
1 Like
