Codes enforcement/zoning laws

[hifigator]

Debate in the global warming thread got me thinking about this again. It's my contention that zoning laws and/or codes enforcement have gotten entirely too restrictive and intrusive, at least down here. I'm curious if Gainesville is unique to this topic or is it commonplace everywhere. If so, what do you all think about it. Like I said in the other thread, extreme cases are used to justify the laws and restrictions in the first place, and rightfully so. It is reasonable to expect that an adult bookstore would not be allowed directly next to an elementary school for example. It is also logical that an airport could not be built right next to a subdivision of single family homes. Similarly, placement of things like sewage plants, water treatment facilities or jails cannot be put just anywhere. However, for every legitimate use of codes laws, there are a dozen far more questionable examples. Here is one first hand example. We own a stereo shop in the downtown area. There is no housing around, it is pretty much exclusively commercial. The subcontractors who have installed car stereos and alarm systems for us for years recently expanded into detailing. They then added one of these spray bedliner franchises. That franchise required a different license. When they went an filled out the paperwork it was nothing but a red tape parade, from one office to another. Since we are zoned "MU-3" (retail multi use) rather than industrial, the bed liner franchise was not allowed. Ultimately they had to relocate to an area zoned for industrial use. As it was not practical to operate 2 different facilities, they ended up consolidating everything into the other location. As it works out, supposedly we aren't zoned for window tinting either. That too has to be industrial as well, even though we have had window tinting for years. The irony is that the man who runs the tinting business was able to go get a mobile license which allows him to tint anywhere in the city limits. So now he can tint here in addition to other places. I just think that kind of crap is silliness.

As I mentioned in the other thread, we have odd restictions. You can't park on the grass, even if it is your own grass. No more than 3 unrelated adults can live under one roof. This is a college town. It's not at all unusual for 4 students to room together. You can get fined for not keeping your yard nice enough. Who's to say what "nice enough" is? I don't know, but it ain't me.

Lastly, even though this isn't really codes related, it does pertain to the same nuts who keep coming up with this nonsense, so I think it deserves mention here. A couple of months ago, our city commissioners voted in an intergender law. It basically says that you can't restrict who goes into which restroom in all public restrooms. Men dressed as women can use the women's if they choose. Women dressed as men can use the men's room likewise. That is the kind of kookiness that we have here in Gainesville.

Again, my question to you all is do you have to deal with similar issues and if so, do you approve?

[theexorcist]

Ok, the debate is over. Hifigator needs to become an honorary Hoya.

Because only a Hoya would start a discussion about zoning laws on a message board that's devoted to athletics.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

we get it you're into small government and you think they should stay out of your business. And yes of course there are some silly, outdated, and at time ridiculous laws that are intrusive and should be done away with. I don't think anyone would argue with you on that point. I hardly think this deserves a topic. Most of the laws are fine and there for a legitimate reason which they still serve.

[williambraskyiii]

I'd rather cut off all my limbs than denigrate georgetown by naming hifi an honorary hoya. exorcist your ideas get worse and worse. i think you need to fade into bolivian like your pal YB did.

[hifigator]

Jun 25, 2008 14:46:55 GMT -5 HoyaSinceBirth said:

we get it you're into small government and you think they should stay out of your business. And yes of course there are some silly, outdated, and at time ridiculous laws that are intrusive and should be done away with. I don't think anyone would argue with you on that point. I hardly think this deserves a topic. Most of the laws are fine and there for a legitimate reason which they still serve.

The fact that I am for shrinking government is true. The fact that I think we need to totally rethink government is pretty much true as well. The ideology of government seems to be "how can we find a way to involve ourselves in an issue?" I think the ideology should be "how can we find a way to peacefully and fairly handle issues without the need of government?" In that regard, I am a libertarian for sure. In all seriousness though, I honestly believe that the mechanism that puts us in this type of situation so often is the debate tactic of starting out with an extreme illustration that almost every sane individual would agree with. Then using the foot in door approach to inject government into more and more aspects of our daily lives. Zoning laws are the perfect example IMO. As soon as someone (generally a fiscal conservative) starts lamenting things like zoning laws, someone (generally a fiscal liberal) starts arguing that without zoning laws, there just might be a sewage plant coming to a back yard near you. There's just no getting around that type of argument. None of us want a sewage plant in a single family community. But extrapalating the logic from there all the way to mowing your grass a certain way or not parking your own car on your own grass is absurd. Incidentally, the cars on the grass came about from student oriented housing again. Those who live close enough to campus to walk would have a dozen friends park at their place and walk. Of course some houses end up with cars all over the place. Personally, if they are paying the mortgage or the rent, then I think they should have that right. But neighbors complained and then the city came up with this stupid idea that the way to prevent that is to disallow cars to be parked on the grass.

As for mowing the grass, the argument is that neighbors property values are negatively affected by unkempt houses. Effectively long grass is a type of blight. Now if you use that very logic, there is no way to not extend it to personal appearance. Would not a house full of gothic people, or people with tattoos from head to toe, or maybe a house full of people with piercings all over their bodies be considered as unattractive by many? Of course it would. So how far away would we be from having an ordinance that prevented the public display of body art or piercings? There really is no logical end to such flawed thinking as that, once you start that style of reasoning.


Note to exorcist: I did post this on the blue and gray board, which as I was informed, is where political topics should be placed.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

um ok like i said I agree with you. I'm not totally in favor of smaller government but in certain instance like this I agree. I'm not saying all zoning laws are bad, but some are ridiculous. But i don't think that because we have some zoning laws in place that eventually we'll necessarily go to the extreme. Just because you could use a certain logic to excuse doing something doesn't mean people will actually do something that stupid.

I think the purpose of zoning laws are to ensure the safety and rights of people from being infringed upon. For the most part I believe you have the right to do anything as long as it doesn't negatively impact others. of course where you draw that line is where controversy comes in.

I think a lot of the laws need to have more leeway put into them. liek the one about not having too many non related adults living in a house. Clearly the law is not meant to stop college kids from living together each instance should be reviewed as a unique situation. I think it's impossible to create these broad overarching rules when situations are so different.

I think the property value argument is tricky, because to some extent you can see their point, but on the other hand it infringes on a persons rights to tell them how they have to have their house look. I feel like if you care that much about stuff like that then belong to a private neighborhood that has some sort of signed agreement to certain restrictions. But otherwise within reason the landowner is allowed to do what they so choose on their propperty unless it threatens safety or the public rest.

Of course public rest needs a loser interpretation especially in certain areas. aka around college campuses. On weekends loud music should be allowed till 2am. If you don't like living near a college then you shouldn't have moved next door to a college. all the party patrolling and noise violations being written up around DC last year has been ridiculous. They shouldn't be wasting their funds on crap like that.

[Bando]

I'll agree, only to say that single use zoning is ridiculous, as are parking mandates. I tend to be very libertarian on a local level.

[AustinHoya03]

Jun 25, 2008 14:50:35 GMT -5 williambraskyiii said:

i think you need to fade into bolivian like your pal YB did.

What does this mean? That you want theexorcist to do a few lines off YB's stiffy?

hifi, perhaps you should move to Houston, where the current debate is over whether to even have zoning laws.

www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5715041.html

[hoyatables]

Actually, there are a number of critiques out there that suggest zoning has gone "too far." Now, many of those critiques focus on design review -- that local zoning boards shouldnt get into the business of subjective valuations like materials, aesthetics, etc.

It's generally accepted that regulations on use are okay -- and particularly restrictions on industrial uses like the ones you described. The critique of use restrictions tends to go more towards, again, the regulations that attempt to be overly prescriptive and require specific uses in a certain area, contrary to what the market might otherwise bear, rather than those that prohibit certain incompatible uses. That said, incentive zoning does work -- it is largely responsible for creating the revitalized downtown DC through incentives for retail and housing.

I can't believe I am actually legitimizing a topic started by HiFi. When it comes to zoning, I can't resist.

[hifigator]

Jun 25, 2008 22:37:57 GMT -5 hoyatables said:

Actually, there are a number of critiques out there that suggest zoning has gone "too far." Now, many of those critiques focus on design review -- that local zoning boards shouldnt get into the business of subjective valuations like materials, aesthetics, etc.

It's generally accepted that regulations on use are okay -- and particularly restrictions on industrial uses like the ones you described. The critique of use restrictions tends to go more towards, again, the regulations that attempt to be overly prescriptive and require specific uses in a certain area, contrary to what the market might otherwise bear, rather than those that prohibit certain incompatible uses. That said, incentive zoning does work -- it is largely responsible for creating the revitalized downtown DC through incentives for retail and housing.

I can't believe I am actually legitimizing a topic started by HiFi. When it comes to zoning, I can't resist.

I'm not sure of the particulars in the downtown DC area to which you refer, but it sounds like a very popular trend going on today. In otherwise considered "retail" areas, many developers are combining upscale housing with retail shops and restaurants. There are a half dozen projects of that sort going on in little old Gainesville as we speak. Typically they will feature a parking garage on the bottom, followed by a floor or two of specialty shops and restaurants and finally some number of more upscale apartment/condominiums.


HoyaSinceBirth wrote:

I think a lot of the laws need to have more leeway put into them. liek the one about not having too many non related adults living in a house. Clearly the law is not meant to stop college kids from living together...

Actually, the law was specifically written to address that issue. Some residents in single family neighborhoods had complained of rental property in their area. As you mentioned, loud music, traffic at odd hours and other assorted hotspots that typically follow students were creating problems ... at least in some people's minds. So the law was written specifially to address that problem. The thinking was that the sheer numbers of people is what create the majority of the problems.

As you mention, I see the point, but don't agree with the conclusion.

[vcjack]

Jun 25, 2008 19:47:12 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Jun 25, 2008 14:50:35 GMT -5 williambraskyiii said:

i think you need to fade into bolivian like your pal YB did.

What does this mean? That you want theexorcist to do a few lines off YB's stiffy?

hifi, perhaps you should move to Houston, where the current debate is over whether to even have zoning laws.

www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5715041.html

sigh, no one remembers Mike Tyson anymore

proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020611

[hoyatables]

Jun 26, 2008 11:01:00 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Jun 25, 2008 22:37:57 GMT -5 hoyatables said:

Actually, there are a number of critiques out there that suggest zoning has gone "too far." Now, many of those critiques focus on design review -- that local zoning boards shouldnt get into the business of subjective valuations like materials, aesthetics, etc.

It's generally accepted that regulations on use are okay -- and particularly restrictions on industrial uses like the ones you described. The critique of use restrictions tends to go more towards, again, the regulations that attempt to be overly prescriptive and require specific uses in a certain area, contrary to what the market might otherwise bear, rather than those that prohibit certain incompatible uses. That said, incentive zoning does work -- it is largely responsible for creating the revitalized downtown DC through incentives for retail and housing.

I can't believe I am actually legitimizing a topic started by HiFi. When it comes to zoning, I can't resist.

I'm not sure of the particulars in the downtown DC area to which you refer, but it sounds like a very popular trend going on today. In otherwise considered "retail" areas, many developers are combining upscale housing with retail shops and restaurants. There are a half dozen projects of that sort going on in little old Gainesville as we speak. Typically they will feature a parking garage on the bottom, followed by a floor or two of specialty shops and restaurants and finally some number of more upscale apartment/condominiums.

Yes, this can be good planning in many situations, because the idea is to create an active streetscape with ground-floor retail and so on. Doesn't always make sense, particularly in suburban areas where there is nowhere for people to walk to or from. But generally its good.

[hifigator]

Tables, 4 such projects are under construction within a mile of the downtown area that I was originally talking about where they want to make parking and traffic such a mess that people won't want to drive. Obviously if there are enough people living in the upper floors, maybe you could get by without the regular "external" traffic. I'm not sure. But I just still don't think it is that hard to provide adequate lanes of traffic to get from point A to point B, while also offering adequate parking at both points A and B. Provided the businesses at points A and B are attractive enough then you have a formula for success. However, if you remove any one of those ingredients, then it makes it dramatically harder.