Why Japan Looks the Way it Does: Zoning

I like the way that Japan handles zoning. It's based on population densities. Localities can designate industrial and commercial areas, but can't deviate from federal guidelines to prevent growth. Instead of single family homes they allow triplexes where a percentage of space can be used for a low-impact business, like a barber shop or something. They have setbacks geared towards making sure that you don't build three stories on top of your neighbor's house. They have neighborhoods. They don't have a housing shortage. They don't have a system that doesn't empower developers who want to clear-cut cheap land on the outskirts of town and build sprawling anti-social subdivisions of oversized identical houses. Here's some more information: [this video]

Yes, land use is one factor. What is interesting is that the dynamic actually flips once there is adequate zoning. Take a look at this[0] video on Tokyo zoning and how he talks about living in an industrial zoned area. He talks about how it's cheaper to do so, and if you want to move to a single family zoned area, it's actually more expensive! Under the current system, landowners want their own land to be zoned as high as possible, while they want everyone else's land to be zoned as low as possible. Since 1 < everyone else, when people vote on zoning it is zoned as low as possible. With a LVT the system flips, everyone wants their land to be zoned as low as they desire, and they want everyone else's land to be zoned as high as possible. They would only accept land zoned restrictively if those people would pay higher taxes for the exclusive use of it. This is a system with proper incentives. [0]: [this video]

Your note above contains a lot of assumptions about what I think, and vitriol, words like steal, destroy, trash, etc. This seems to be something that you are emotional about. Lots of people think it's immoral for neighbors to be able to micromanage the living spaces of other neighbors outside of basic safety issues. I'm not sure how you'd defend imposing your will on other people just because you can at any given moment. Who are you to hijack the decades and centuries that goes into a city, like you mentioned, and freeze it in time for your convenience, at the expense of others who were born into the same society you were. We're all here together, you can't morally just marginalize people you're afraid of. I stand by my original statement that I think it's wrong for you to characterize everyone who doesn't agree with the way zoning has evolved in this country over the last 100 years as an interloper. We live in a democracy. These are fellow citizens, people who are just as important as you and me. I'm not in favor of big developers or corporations or profits. I don't want to build a high rise or a factory next to your house. I am in favor of lots more real neighborhoods, as opposed to suburban developer big-box retail car centric sprawl. I am opposed to single use zoning. If I had a magic wand I think that the way the Japanese do zoning is much better than the way it has evolved in the U.S. [0]. [0] [this video]

This is true, zoning in Japan [0] makes a lot of sense. Instead of single family homes they allow triplexes, even a percentage of space dedicated to a low-impact business (like hair stylist, etc). They have setback rules so that you can't put second/third floor up against your neighbors property line blocking the sun all day. They dedicate nearby spaces for commercial and hi-rise buildings, making it possible to live near where you work. And there is dedicated space for factories and other industrial buildings. Single-use single family zoning is being eliminated in some areas of the U.S., allowing accessory dwelling units to be built, etc. Even California just passed a low changed R1 to R3 for all cities in the state (pending court cases, I assume). [0] [this video]

> Define “significantly impose”. That’s the basic problem, I agree. > existing near someone can have effects that are easy to justify in court I had the impression this was a "mob rule" problem, that local voters were voting for zoning laws that limit the quality and quantity of new housing. I admit to not understanding the legal or moral justification. It just doesn't seem right to micromanage others to the extent that occurs today. There are other countries that are much more flexible, like Japan [0]. Instead of single family single use zoning they start with three story multi-use housing. Some places in the U.S. are moving in this direction. > decreasing or limiting increase on future land values That can be flipped around. Someone who opposes new housing is taking value from the people who could have made use of that new housing, had it been allowed. [0] [this video]