Also contributes massively to sprawl and thus carbon emissions because you can't have a more traditional sort of neighborhood where people might walk to the park and corner store.
Nothing against people owning a 1 acre lot if they want - that's fine! Imposing it on everyone is economic segregation.
Sounds like you do, you more or less accused anyone that desires a 1 acre plot of classism or wanting to "keep the poor people out", and of wanting to destroy the environment.
In reality most people that want that simply desire privacy, I for example desire that because i do not want to "walk to the corner store" or have a park at all in my neighborhood. I do not want to have "neighborhood" events, or be able to talk to my neighbor from my porch.
I want privacy, I want to be able to enjoy my hobbies which are solitary pursuits not group activities.
I agree but only in the sense that it should include 39 more acres. And a mule.
Uhhh not in the very least. Many of us want to live in areas that have 3-acre minimum lots because of a little thing called nature. Those who want to live crammed into micro-apartments with 1 tree for every 30 people can, but those of us who want a whole town that is more grass that pavement should NOT be accused of classism or racism.
If you really want to help poor people, figure out a system that doesn't box them into ever-decreasing concrete apartments further and further from clean air.
If everyone lived on 3 acres, you know how much truly wild land would be paved over?
Now, I strongly agree that people ought to have the right to purchase and live on a large lot if they want. Great, you earned it, have fun!
Requiring that? That's using the government to perpetuate a sprawly, carbon-intensive lifestyle that very much does exclude those who are not wealthy enough to purchase that much land. That's part of the point in many places with that kind of regulation.
The majority of residents of an area using the government to control that area is the pinnacle of democracy.
>> If everyone lived on 3 acres, you know how much truly wild land would be paved over?
Actually, no there's plenty of land in America. Nothing would be paved, it would just be moved to yards (hint yards aren't paved). And if the population doesn't grow, then there's no reason America can't live like that forever.
When excluding illegal immigration, the US population is actually shrinking. There's no need to artificially box ourselves in.
15.77b acres of habitable land. http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/land.html
15.77 / 7.7 = 2.04
Every human could have about 2 acres. At this level of distribution humans would essentially live in wilderness and integrate with nature. Oftentimes humans live in family groups so the actual point distribution would be uneven.
Unfortunately arable land needed to feed the humans varies by locale but tops at about .6 hectacres [0] or 1.48 acres[1]. This means that effective wilderness could be slightly less than .5 acres per human after some nominal usage for housing and utility right of ways.
0. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/arable-land-use-per-perso...
1. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=.6+hectares+to+acres&atb=v83-1__&i...
That's false though. There are a lot of animals that do not want to be anywhere near humans, roads, houses or anything else. The presence of people wrecks it for them. Not to mention the jacked up carbon emissions if everyone had to drive around for everything because everyone is spread out.
Human-avoiding life already has a hard time. The habitable surface estimate did not include many areas where the remaining ones exist, such as tundra, ice pack, mountains and deserts. Additionally inter-human proximity preference distribution will allow for additional area outside the aforementioned surface classifications.
We can't. That's the problem.
This is fine to have a town like this.
But a town like this has no business being in a major metropolitan area of the US such as the Bay Area. (I'm looking at you, Atherton.)
https://www.vox.com/22252625/america-racist-housing-rules-ho...
Central planning leads to a situation where market signals are ignored, and entrenches the status quo, rather than allowing cities (and economies in general) to change as needed. It seems highly unlikely that we've stumbled upon the "perfect" land use pattern. Why make it impossible to change from it then?
I'm referring to zoning as the central planning. It's central planning at a local scale, but still central planning.
Instead of letting each town set its own course, why not just let each property owner set their own course (within reasonable limits for market failures, like safety)?
My entire point is that restrictive zoning is the bureaucrats in the city governments deciding what the best use is for each plot of land, rather than letting the market decide based on demand.
Also, if we look at the Berkley case (which is what the OP is about!), there was no external force, the town made the change on its own.