Comment by epistasis
4 months ago
I think noise pollution regulation would be a great way to stop undesired effects that spread from one property to another.
Unfortunately when it comes to land use, we have a tendency to block overall uses rather than blocking the negative effects of those uses. This prevents many solutions from ever being tried.
> Unfortunately when it comes to land use, we have a tendency to block overall uses rather than blocking the negative effects of those uses
Probably because history is full of developers promising to mitigate certain negative consequences and then failing to do so. I'm as YIMBY as anyone, so this history of developers being awful matters a lot to me: it galvanizes the opposition.
Do you have examples of this? Where has the negative effect been banned (presumably with suitable penalties) and then ignored?
I'm not that young but I have not seen examples of this.
What do you mean? It happens every day. Lots are upzoned based on VeryNiceIdea and then instead StupidBullshit gets built (so long as StupidBullshit fits into the same zoning scheme as VeryNiceIdea).
6 replies →