How about a strip club? how about a battery recycling company? how about a metal recycling plant? How about a bar that is open to 4AM and has lots of live concerts?
Zoning regulations exist for a reason - removing them will do ZERO to generate more low-income housing - if there was money to be made in building low-income housing, there would be plenty of low-income housing already.
Strip clubs should be wholesale illegal, but I digress. I suppose there is a Thai massage parler of dubious characcter in my neighborhood (recently started), but it'll soon be kicked out I imagine due to public pressure. It's not like no zoning means there's no neighborhood input.
Live concerts... ? Well that is against noise regulations and so while a bar can happily exist (in fact the best tiki bar in my state is located a few blocks away... lovely date night), it has to take effort to be quiet. This is good. Bars and pubs are integral to community cohesion.
There are two bars near me that throw concerts, but these are usually during the day and the neighbors are invited, and they give us free food and beer sometimes, so that's nice.
I honestly cannot understand the complaint.
I'm not advocating the removal of zoning for low-income housing. Removing zoning would build more lovely luxury housing, which is what we need more of. Low-income housing is just old luxury housing. All housing is luxury when it's built. No one build old housing. Why would you intentionally build something shitty?
Zoning regulation exist for a reason but have gone way way too far in the favor of NIMBYs who like living in food/fun/transportation deserts.
It's also a total non-concern. Reasonable regulation can get around this.
Here's a law that we can add today before we get rid of zoning.
1. Any business that knowingly engages in activity that leaks toxic materials, noise at night, vibrations, or other nuisances onto adjoining properties preventing neighborhing pre-existing property owners from enjoying their property, owes 200% punitive damages of any revenue derived from such activity or, if no revenue is derived, $1 million.
Easy... now no company will possibly build in an area with existing housing because they can face hefty damages. For example, a metal recycling company which deals with potentially hazardous waste can have its revenue turned into a loss if it builds near homes. On the other hand, since the regulation only applies to nuisances towards existing homeowners, no one will develop housing near such a metal recycling facility, because they know they will face nuisances and there's nothing they can do.
In fact, this is how it was done for many centuries.