Now that I’m mostly done reading the code (one more post coming on the severability clause) I’m trying to come up with a response to the code. What would I change? Why? What would I keep and why? I’m also trying to figure out what I’ve learned. I’ve learned there are natural limits to land use.
I’ll go into that more later, but in the Sunday Times this blog gets a mention, in and article by Christine Harvey.
Now this isn’t just the usual chest thumping that bloggers do. I’m actually thinking about what I’m calling “the natural limits of land use.” Nothing too special, just one guys thoughts about the code. But Harvey picked up my thoughts well on proposed changes to the code.
Current zoning constrains the natural supply and demand of what makes for a successful project. Outlying areas, where there are many streets with low volumes of foot traffic, are suffering most
Not a total summation of my view, but I’m getting there. The idea is that land use is local fiscal policy. The government can promote good things with relaxing the code, but it has to be careful when it tightens the code because that’s where the government can do harm.
I won’t go further yet. But what I am proposing is the idea that up zones can’t have negative impacts. Down zones can be good, but they are more often bad. Doing nothing is the worst thing of all.
More later, but check out the Times. And this picture is a hint about what I’m thinking.