Hacker News Reader

Comment by c3534l | Hacker News Reader

I hate how that's phrased. No one is ending single-family housing. They're legalizing multi-resident housing.

> I hate how that's phrased. No one is ending single-family housing.

That would be a fair complaint, if the word “housing” had been used in place of “zoning”. Single-family zoning is a legal restriction that allows only single-family housing. Ending it is not the same as ending single-family housing.

If you are going to complain about phrasing, you should complain about the actual phrasing.

I got the same impression from the headline. When trying to communicate I have found that it is best to be understood as opposed to being dictionary correct. Personally I would've went with "allow multi-family housing", but I also probably wouldn't click on the article because it's just saying that making smaller homes allows you to have more of them over a given area.

I suppose it depends who your audience is. If you’re writing for people who understand what single family zoning is, then suddenly inventing new terminology is likely to confuse them.

People who live in areas affected by single family zoning tend to be very familiar with the term.

People don't understand that the single family zoning is actually an apartment ban. So even if it's technically correct, it scares a lot of people unnecessarily.

Otherwise intelligent people have their brains broken when it comes to discussions about housing. We need to pick words carefully to not confuse.

I agree with this (words mean things), but have also been told to my face in community meetings during attempts to upzone parcels “we don’t want more people here.” These are not fancy burbs, average SFH value is ~$300k. The approach with the uneducated is different than that with an adversary.

Until more state laws (ie California’s recent legislation) are passed where density developers can reply “that’s a shame”, NIMBYs rule. NY is gearing up for a similar fight.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/11/hochul-faces-uprisi...

And then NIMBYs call efforts to allow taller buildings “one size fits all”, whereas it’s the exact opposite: the status quo in these neighborhoods is one size (SFHs only) fits all.

As far as an uninformed reader is concerned (think either the typical cable news watcher or the typical apolitical person), "ending single-family zoning" reads as "banning new single-family housing". Most voters, let alone most people, are every bit as clueless about public policy details as the people who held up "keep the government out of my Medicare" signs at the protests against Obamacare so you need to be really careful to explain what the existing policy is and how it is being changed.

I think it's fair to expect a little bit more out of the average hacker news poster.

> As far as an uninformed reader is concerned (think either the typical cable news watcher or the typical apolitical person), "ending single-family zoning" reads as "banning new single-family housing".

I really don’t think that’s true. Yes, the average citizen is uninformed about the average policy issue, but that alone doesn’t support a characterization that most unsophisticated readers has the same very specific misunderstanding of a particular policy issue when identified in the usual terms. There are some issues where something like that is the case, and there is polling to suggest that, but just making the unsupported leap from “unsophisticated citizens” to “this particular misunderstanding” with no evidence is not warranted.

While that is true, it also ends the zoning that is established to allow people to live in a single-family neighborhood.

As though that were a great loss?

I live in a seven-unit apartment building on a block that is otherwise entirely single-family homes. It was built in 1890. As far as I can tell, none of the residents here could be noticed as out of the ordinary by anyone outside of our building; I have my gripes with the neighbors downstairs who play their TV too loud, but it has no effect on the rest of the neighborhood.

I can't say as much, however, for the house next door, which is rented by a group of college students who regularly hold loud parties with dozens of people over. I'm sure they're pretty conspicuous. In an economy where it is already very common for multiple adults to rent rooms in a "single-family" home, it is a mistake to blame people's behavior on the type of building they live in.

No one is stopping anyone from building a single-family neighborhood, if it makes economical sense in the area. Neighborhoods are usually developed as a unit.

It would be more accurate to say our experiment with apartment prohibition is coming to an end, and many American cities are returning to the rules that were in effect when all their best buildings were built and neighborhoods formed.

This has been a major point of confusion. A lot of people respond as if their house will be torn down against their will and replaced with an apartment building.

Zoning. They're ending single family zoning, not single family housing - it doesn't claim they're doing the latter.

It's the same thing worded differently.

Well, I did complain about how these things are worded - I thinking the framing is misleading.

Oh I was alluding to they are actually ending SFH without actually killing it legally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com