I mean mixed use buildings still have to be approved by the city and meet building codes.
Yeah, the big issue with saying “it’s your land do what you want” is that you start getting wildly-unsafe buildings and situations because “it’s my land I can do whatever” rapidly turns into “and I want to build something highly unsafe to live in because it’s cheap to do so”. This is how you wind up with tenement housing where one apartment catches fire and a hundred people burn to death because nobody forced the builder to consider evacuation routes.
Yeah, you can’t build like a refinery and a parking garage next to a school. That kind of development is how you get Houston.
Ironically, Texas still enforces minimum parking requirements.
This is stupid af
BRB, dumping hazardous waste on my land.
I’ll take one for the team.
Put the nuclear waste in my basement.
Oh man all the party poopers in the comments. These memes are funny instead of the usual preachy content - doesn’t matter if its slightly inaccurate
Kinda getting tired of liberals trying to gaslight folks into thinking that if they just let developers do whatever they want they’ll magically get charming three story mixed used buildings instead of the neighborhood killing 5 overs 2s.
It’s an intentionally dumb meme intended to make fun of right-wing idiots (and maybe get some of them to think about their views). Nobody is suggesting to completely remove every zoning restriction, but less restrictive zoning is a good idea.
Exactly. I’m just trying to reframe dumb NIMBY policies like restrictive zoning and mandatory parking minimums as anti-freedom so as to try to get conservative NIMBYs to maybe be just a little less NIMBY.
Absolutely no one is seriously arguing we allow PFAS chemical plants next to kindergartens or that we remove all building safety codes. Just that restrictive zoning (and other NIMBY land use policies) is stupid, harmful, and we should get rid of it.
Well it is a simple meme that shouldnt be considered a stand in for a complete set of ideas, it does sure seem like it is saying to remove all the zoning restrictions.
The opposite of less restrictive zoning is a good idea. The good idea is to have our cities designed by experts in urban planning, with the goal of maximizing quality of life and efficiency of infrastructure. The free market won’t achieve an optimal solution, proper planning will. Add social housing to the mix and you’ve suddenly also solved the housing crisis.
I don’t disagree, but that’s a harder sell politically so it’s not something that governments are going to implement without widespread consensus. Whereas reducing zoning restrictions and parking minimums and the like can be implemented more easily and have some impact even if it doesn’t solve all of the more fundamental problems. If you want more than that, you’re going to need an overwhelming progressive voter base, and I’d say it’s not there yet in most Western democracies.
Cheap social housing is harder to sell politically than allowing companies to do whatever they want with the construction of housing? Nah.
You’re taking to a commie, the path towards change is rarely reformism. I’ll support reforms in the meanwhile, sure, but not “free market” nonsolutions. Besides, similar problems occur in Europe (where I’m from) with suburban sprawl, and there aren’t such strict zoning laws here,
Cheap social housing is harder to sell politically than allowing companies to do whatever they want with the construction of housing? Nah.
That part is fine and doable, it’s the central planning that is going to be a very hard sell. Although I’ll add that you probably want to call it “public housing” as “social housing” typically means “public-private” partnerships (but that may be a language/location difference).
The one about bikes is a banger but not feeling it here :(
Is “it’s your land, do what you want with it” a thing anywhere at all? Afaik the land usually belongs to the government and even if sold it’s not really sold sold, otherwise one could buy some land and declare independence which is kind of not possible
I mean… You can declare it…
Doesn’t mean much unless you have the ability to back up that declaration.
Something something MichaelScott.png
But Sovcits won’t let that stand in their way.
Ownership over something doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want with it legally. You wouldn’t argue you don’t “actually own” a knife because you’re not allowed to stab people with it.
Well, I would say that this is a very controversial area of what exactly are you not allowed to do with things you really own. I consider everything that doesn’t harm other people to be allowed, others may view it differently. In some places you’re not allowed to stab yourself with a knife you own (or rent, or stole, for that matter), that just means that besides owning there are many things to comply to, but all of them contradict the “do what you want”
This makes it seem like a single, central government is responsible for the restrictive, local zoning laws. Does the federal government force cities, counties, and municipalities to adopt certain, specific zoning laws?
I love it, might just work
This might be the dumb shit some mouth breathers need to see. Might.
Until rich people decided to own all the land and now there’s no freedom.
Based
deleted by creator
Patriotism and “freedom” as expressed by Americans are concepts used to manipulate you and make you do things that are in other people’s interests, not yours. Here you are trying to steal some of the magic by cargo cultishly invoking the concepts, but I think you know it doesn’t work like that. In any case, it’s very cynical, both of you, and of those you are trying to ape.
deleted by creator
![[meme] Part of my ongoing efforts to rebrand urbanist ideas as patriotic and pro-freedom (which they unironically are)](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/327c31e1-5586-4204-a0a3-4d77832d845e.webp){kind=link}