Zoning- a great way to keep poor people far away

So I knew very little about zoning in America and the world, I just knew I didn’t like how it was implemented as it makes things overly restrictive for land use. An AI prompt revealed the following:

Zoning, as a formal practice of regulating land use, emerged in the early 20th century as a response to rapid urbanization, industrialization, and public health concerns. Its history can be traced through several key phases and developments, primarily in the United States, where modern zoning practices were pioneered, though similar concepts later spread globally.

Early Origins (Pre-20th Century)

  • Pre-Industrial Era: Before formal zoning, land use was often regulated informally through private agreements, restrictive covenants, or nuisance laws. Cities in ancient civilizations, like Rome or medieval European towns, had rudimentary rules separating noxious activities (e.g., tanneries) from residential areas, but these were not systematic.
  • 19th Century: Industrialization led to crowded, unsanitary urban conditions. Cities like London and New York began implementing basic regulations, such as building height restrictions or fire safety codes, to address public health and safety. For example, New York City’s 1867 Tenement House Act regulated housing conditions but wasn’t true zoning.

Birth of Modern Zoning (Early 20th Century)

  • New York City’s 1916 Zoning Ordinance: Widely considered the first comprehensive zoning law in the U.S., New York City’s ordinance was spurred by the construction of the Equitable Building, a massive skyscraper that blocked sunlight and air in Manhattan. The law, passed on July 25, 1916, introduced three key controls:
    • Use restrictions: Separating residential, commercial, and industrial areas.
    • Height restrictions: Limiting building heights based on street width to ensure light and air.
    • Area regulations: Controlling building bulk and lot coverage.
      This ordinance became a model for other U.S. cities.
  • Motivations: The 1916 ordinance aimed to protect property values, reduce urban congestion, and address public health concerns (e.g., overcrowding, lack of sunlight). It also reflected class and racial biases, as zoning was sometimes used to exclude certain groups by designating areas for single-family homes or restricting multifamily housing.

Legal and National Expansion (1920s–1930s)

  • Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (1922): Issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce under Secretary Herbert Hoover, this model legislation encouraged states to grant cities the authority to enact zoning laws. It standardized zoning practices and led to widespread adoption across the U.S.
  • Euclidean Zoning: Named after the 1926 U.S. Supreme Court case Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., which upheld zoning as a legitimate exercise of police power to protect public welfare. This case solidified zoning’s legality, despite arguments that it restricted property rights. Euclidean zoning emphasized strict separation of land uses (e.g., residential vs. commercial), shaping suburban development patterns.
  • Spread Across the U.S.: By the 1930s, most major U.S. cities had adopted zoning ordinances. Suburbs used zoning to enforce low-density, single-family housing, often to maintain exclusivity and segregate by class or race.

Mid-20th Century: Zoning and Suburbanization

  • Post-WWII Boom: Zoning played a central role in shaping post-war suburban sprawl. Federal policies, like the GI Bill and highway construction, combined with zoning laws, encouraged single-family home development and car-centric communities. Zoning codes often mandated minimum lot sizes, setbacks, and parking requirements, reinforcing low-density suburbs.
  • Exclusionary Zoning: Zoning became a tool for social and racial segregation. Practices like restrictive covenants and zoning for large-lot single-family homes made it difficult for lower-income or minority groups to access certain neighborhoods. While explicit racial zoning was struck down (e.g., Buchanan v. Warley in 1917), economic barriers persisted.
  • Urban Renewal: In the 1950s–1960s, zoning facilitated large-scale urban renewal projects, often clearing “blighted” areas (frequently minority neighborhoods) for redevelopment, displacing communities.

Late 20th Century: Challenges and Reforms

  • Critiques of Euclidean Zoning: By the 1960s, urban planners criticized strict Euclidean zoning for creating monotonous, car-dependent suburbs and stifling mixed-use development. This led to innovations like:
    • Planned Unit Developments (PUDs): Allowing flexibility in zoning for mixed-use or clustered developments.
    • Form-Based Codes: Focusing on building form and design rather than strict use separation, emerging in the 1980s–1990s.
  • Environmental and Social Concerns: Zoning began addressing environmental issues (e.g., floodplain regulations) and affordable housing needs. Some cities introduced inclusionary zoning, requiring developers to include affordable units.
  • Legal Challenges: Courts increasingly scrutinized exclusionary zoning. Cases like Mount Laurel (1975) in New Jersey mandated that municipalities provide their “fair share” of affordable housing, challenging restrictive zoning practices.

21st Century: Evolving Zoning Practices

  • Smart Growth and New Urbanism: Since the 1990s, zoning has shifted toward promoting walkable, mixed-use, and sustainable communities. Cities like Portland, Oregon, and Minneapolis have experimented with upzoning (allowing higher density) to address housing shortages.
  • Housing Crisis: Zoning has faced scrutiny for contributing to housing unaffordability by limiting supply. In response, some states (e.g., California, Oregon) have passed laws to ease restrictions on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or multifamily housing in single-family zones. Minneapolis’s 2018 decision to end single-family-only zoning citywide was a landmark reform.
  • Equity and Inclusion: Recent debates focus on zoning’s role in perpetuating racial and economic inequality. Movements to abolish or reform exclusionary zoning aim to increase access to opportunity-rich areas.
  • Climate and Resilience: Zoning now often incorporates climate considerations, such as restricting development in flood-prone areas or incentivizing green infrastructure.

Global Context

  • Europe: European cities historically had less rigid zoning than the U.S., with mixed-use neighborhoods common. Post-WWII, many adopted zoning inspired by U.S. models but adapted to local contexts, emphasizing urban density and public transit.
  • Developing World: In rapidly urbanizing regions, zoning is often less formal, with informal settlements challenging regulatory frameworks. Some cities, like those in India or Brazil, blend formal zoning with ad hoc regulations.

Current Trends (2025)

As of July 23, 2025, zoning continues to evolve:

  • YIMBY Movement: The “Yes In My Backyard” movement pushes for zoning reforms to allow more housing, especially in high-demand cities. States like California have passed laws like SB 9 (2021) to allow duplexes in single-family zones.
  • Technology and Zoning: Digital tools, like GIS mapping, enable more precise zoning regulations. Some cities experiment with dynamic zoning, adjusting rules based on real-time data.
  • Debates Over Single-Family Zoning: Cities like Seattle and Austin are following Minneapolis’s lead, reducing or eliminating single-family zoning to increase density and affordability.

Summary

Zoning’s history reflects a balance between public welfare, economic interests, and social dynamics. From its 1916 origins in New York City to its global spread, zoning has shaped urban and suburban landscapes, often reinforcing segregation and sprawl. Recent reforms aim to address housing shortages, equity, and climate challenges, but zoning remains a contentious tool, balancing property rights, community needs, and systemic inequalities.

If you’d like me to dive deeper into a specific aspect (e.g., zoning’s impact on a city, legal cases, or global examples), let me know!

1 Like

In my own search for land I have repeatedly come across land with CCR’s (covenants, conditions, restrictions), most often from the 1970’s or 1980’s, and now when you look at them, they almost completely look like restrictions against poor people using that land.

The CCR’s are almost impossible to get rid of, as you have to track down the person or the relative of the person who put the restrictions in place and get them to sign documents releasing the restrictions. They probably won’t want to do that because they are probably in their 70’s or 80’s and set in their ways against allowing poor people into neighborhoods. However, what it means to be a poor person is different now than 50 years ago.

I am currently searching across multiple states for raw land or land with a building to be used for what zoning usually calls “light manufacturing.” The problem is that there has been very little manufacturing done in America so very few buildings and properties have been zoned as manufacturing.

So it turns an entrepreneur into a beggar; you have to go to a city council and beg them to change the zoning of your building. This is a big problem because if you don’t own the building and you have to go to the city council to change the zoning, maybe you get it re-zoned but then you never end up owning the building because the deal falls through. Or you own the building and city council refuses to re-zone and you’re stuck with a building you can’t use.

So I have some solutions forming in my mind to solve the problems with the way zoning has been done , but I’ll give Martin a chance to chime in here if he wants to.

1 Like

Zoning is definitely exclusionary that is why I don’t like them I understand why in some cases they may be necessary but only in rare circumstances should they be exclusionary. The RCIA standard (Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural) has legitimate purposes but the way they are abused is what is the problem.

The govt shouldn’t tell you all of the restrictions with the land only these things.
1 This is a place for commercial business.
2 This is a place to live.
3 This is a place to build things.
End of discussion the good thing is for LL the people can vote on these things without being a beggar they can directly propose a zoning change if they want to and make their case as to why it is a good thing for the community. I would go further and say only those people that have a vested interest in that area vote on the issue too.

2 Likes

What do you mean by 3 “This is a place to build things.”? Are you talking about building permits?

My thoughts on zoning is that all the original zoning laws were based on being a nuisance to others and having what you do on your property taking away from their property. That NY building blocked sunlight from neighboring properties and stopped airflow.

Why not have the taking of all these things from the neighboring property be illegal and leave it there? Illegal to take a certain amount of sunlight from another property. Illegal to play music over a certain decibel level at the property line. Illegal to divert a certain amount of water from a stream so that the next property gets none. Illegal to create a noxious smell for longer than a certain period of time.

It seems like we have all these nuisance laws but then we ALSO have zoning, and zoning is based on nuisances. It sounds like consolidation of control by a bunch of Karens that want to be in charge of what their neighbors are doing.

If you own your property that you also live on, you should be given great latitude to do what you need to do on your property. If you need to build a barn, just build it, you shouldn’t have to ask the govt for permission. If that barn is breaking a nuisance law then your neighbor has a right to get the govt involved and they may demand you tear it down or move it.

There’s no need to sub-designate properties for manufacturing, because the original reason for that was, probably, extra noise nuisance or extra truck traffic nuisance. We have modern methods for stopping noise (look what happened to drone noise recently) and as long as the roads are built for heavy trucks then trucks should be allowed to use those roads. If the roads wear down quicker then whomever is in charge of road maintenance there (govt or private business or coop) should go to the trucking destination property and ask for extra payment to maintain the road. If they say no, well they will have to deal with degraded roads just like everyone else, so eventually an agreement is likely.

The only thing I haven’t worked out yet is, if we are only having 2 designations: commercial and residential. Commercial is only leased from the govt, and residential is owned in the conventional manner. Well there are going to be a bunch of grey areas in between commercial and residential.

I do like how in Japan they seem to let a homeowner run a business out of their house pretty easily. I walked in several “bars” that turned out to be someones home and they just put in some chairs and tables and it is the homeowner serving you alcohol in their home for some extra money.

Perhaps, the natural market forces will prevent the grey areas from being problematic. Residential properties will be more desirable because they are more permanent and so they will bring a high price. Commercial properties, not having permanence, will only be desirable because the cost per month is lower and this will help a business start up and run easier. Perhaps the govt (who is in charge of commercial leases) must make sure to have the lease rate per month be less than the mortgage rate per month if it was a residential property, so that business, where all the little costs matter, stays in the commercial areas, and homes, which have a different list of priorities, stays in the residential areas.

1 Like

Build things meant manufacturing and industry my apologies. Nuisance laws would I think be the best option however those terms can be very subjective like disturbance of the peace can be very vague the ways in which to remedy this will be getting into the minutia of details but if we are to build a society based on libertarian principles we need to have these debates.

1 How much sunlight is acceptable
2 How many decibels is too loud and in what zone? A residential house and a bar would have a different level of tolerance.
3 What defines a noxious gas and lack of airflow

No building permits of any kind should ever be necessary or issued!
I think your idea of the natural market forces will be the most appropriate way to keep the balance but I think your approach to nuisance laws will be the best way to keep everyone in check!

1 Like

Yes you bring up good points. Let’s get into the minutia.

  1. It would be the amount of sunlight necessary to grow crops. AI said between 40-80% of direct sunlight is necessary to grow food plants. So let’s just assume for this that we know scientifically we need 70% of direct sunlight to grow. The law would be something like: you cannot have a building that blocks more than 30% of direct sunlight of any part of your neighbor’s land setback 20 feet from the property line.
  2. I’m not too sure about the decibel scale, but the law might be something like: you cannot exceed XXX decibels from sunrise to sunset, and you cannot exceed XX decibels from sunset to sunrise. Measured at the neighbors property line. I would imagine that residential and commercial would be 2 different levels, so commercial would be quite lenient.
  3. There are electronic meters that can detect poisonous gas down to parts-per-billion level but it would probably be up to who the neighbor complains to as the 3rd party (police, CD or govt worker of some sort) because if they can smell it and are annoyed by it, then it is obviously problematic.

Yeah building permits are ridiculous. The person should know the rules, so they can make a building and if the building breaks the rules then it is on them to solve the problem or remove the building. Imagine how cheap it will be to make great buildings without endless permits and useless inspections.

All great points again if a variance were to be attempted by the property owner the adjacent property owners should sign a form authorizing the variance if they agree to the terms of the variance. It should only be those with a vested interest in that area not a widespread public vote or special commission and it is a binding contract in the blockchain so there are no disputes over who signed what variances.

There a two reasons why I listed manufacturing
1 Yes it is a nuisance I will concede this point
2 Different infrastructural needs, it needs heavier roads for one but they also have higher utility needs for water, power, natural gas for a few examples. This is part of the reason why industrial parks exist they also usually have fire stations inside them because from an insurance stance they are a higher fire risk.

So I will circle back this question to you even though most if not all of these infrastructural services will be privately operated don’t we need to keep them in a somewhat cohesive area versus having manufacturing all over the commercial zone?

1 Like

Hmmm, good question…

I previously stated my version of a new country wouldn’t have public electricity lines, or public water lines, or public gas lines. The individual or business can do all that for themselves. It would probably need public internet lines, as there’s not really a good alternative at the moment.

Under these circumstances, I wonder if entrepreneurs would step up and start an industrial business park and they would have their own electrical generation plant, and their own central water tower that might be at a river or other water source or potentially have to get water trucked in, and maybe even drill down to tap their own natural gas source.

So just from writing what I have so far, it seems like instead of “industrial” designation, maybe a better designation would be “heavy utility usage” and these areas might need to be located at a spot where they have water access or natural gas access. So maybe the govt wouldn’t have to designate, the business would be drawn to the commercial area that offers them access to the utilities they need. And the govt should already know where these areas are because one of the first things they should have done was survey the available land.

Although, depending on if the new country wants to entice in certain businesses, it might want to hold an e-vote on whether the govt should set up the utilities in the area needed to assist that business. For instance, if the govt/citizens wanted a cement manufacturer to set up an operation in the country, the govt might need to start or get a 3rd party business to start natural gas production at the site, because cement needs a lot of natural gas as the heating element.

To help any future discussion here, I asked AI what are some of the businesses that are heavy utility users:

Water: agriculture, electrical power plants, pulp and paper, automotive manufacturing, semiconductor, mining, and construction materials manufacturing.

Natural gas: chemical manufacturing, food processing, plastics manufacturing, metal production, oil refineries, paper and pulp, and cement plants.

Electrical: usually if the business uses a lot of water or natural gas, it will also use a lot of electrical. Also any business with high HVAC demands.

1 Like

You make a very good point a on heavy utility usage zone because of the inherent usage of utilities for industrial businesses. The biggest issue is getting the infrastructure in place but I would think that can be easily solved with a few entrepreneurs getting together and creating an industrial park. That is something that can be done if the right conditions are allowed to occur.

1 Like

I like that except for the part about the government telling people anything. The government should not be able to tell anyone anything because that is representative democracy. We need true direct democracy which is possible now for the first time in recorded history.

1 Like

H, we talk in other threads about how a bunch of little problems have popped up with this new method of e-voting, such as, there is stuff for govt to make decisions on every day, but people don’t necessarily want to vote every day. We have ascertained that many Swiss do not vote in every 3 month voting term (although it’s not e-voting, so not a great comparison).

Also it takes time to set up the vote on things so realistically, it couldn’t be done every single day, at most, once every few days is possible. And who sets the vote up? Even the phrasing they use in the vote could sway voters? And what informational material is included next to the issue being voted on?

Would the most powerful person in LL or any e-voting country become the guy who sets up the vote, because he can set it up to his preferences?

1 Like