Comment by calbear81
5 hours ago
I really don't get why zoning didn't solve this. Isn't this the point of having zoning that it dictates what types of things can be built and what they can be used for? I don't know why I need separate approvals if I'm building within the rules that zoning allows. There should be no discretionary objections allowed - if you buy a house next to a commercial lot then you know what you're getting yourself into.
What you're talking about is called ministerial approval. Some zone regulations do require it, but many are specifically written to prevent it, giving every opportunity possible for anyone who disagrees to delay any project for any reason.
Not sure what the "this" is that you think zoning didn't "solve" exactly. Where I live (Melbourne, Australia), I think zoning does work pretty effectively. Industry builds in industrial zones, houses and apartments get built in residential zones. Fortunately (I think) the government is generally on the side of increasing the density and changing the rules to make it possible, so we don't have a San Francisco type situation where no one can build anything because the residental lobbies are so powerful.
The pain points for us are to do with attempting to increase the density of the city, which means building apartment buildings where there used to be just single story houses with backyards - something those residents don't like. Or the complexities of big projects like new train lines, that impact an awful lot of stuff around them.
But in general, a lot of stuff is getting built, it's just expensive.
zoning was designed to keep undesirables out, not to set clear ground rules. because that was its goal, we’ve also intentionally let local control laws and appeal rights/systems inflate to act as secondary/tertiary controls on development. most land use law exists only to protect incumbents