DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**wantedLOX** · 12-03-2006, 07:59 PM

However, the writer assumes that (for the most part) people behave in a way that is in the best interest of others. Life experience for anyone over the age of 13 proves otherwise.

It's not necessarily that they have the best interest of others in mind; I think it has more to do with the belief that rational self-interest, when left unpressured by restrictions such as zoning, has a way of benefitting all parties involved. It's all very theoretical and philosophical, I know, but there isn't a lot of recent precedent for us to know whether it would work or not. For the past 100 years or so, America as a whole, and especially places like New York City, have developed more regulation for everything.

And anyone with a knowledge of NYC Zoning history is aware that NYC Zoning Regulations came about because one particular building (the Equitable Building) was built in such a way that, had development been allowed to continue in that fashion, adequate light and air for existing (and subsequent smaller buildings) would be put in jeopardy. True. However, one has to wonder just how development would have proceeded without the very reactionary zoning regulations were put in place. Somehow, before 1916, the city got along without zoning. I don't know, it just seems somewhat unjust for such pervasive regulations to be set up for all future developers in response to a single event.

And that brings up another example of the pros and cons of zoning: surely, a lot of us here appreciate the classic "setback" NYC skyscraper, which developed in direct response to those regulations requiring sunlight to reach down into the street. But a few decades later, when Modernism arrived, look what happened: we started gaining all those dreaded plazas, with their accompanying un-setbacked boxes. The reason for doing so was the same: allow light to reach the street. The result, however, was much different and much less favorable.

While Zoning Regulations -- both in NYC and elsewhere -- are clearly not perfect, to label them "evil" -- as the writer here does -- is wrongheaded. I think he uses the label, again, purely on philosophical grounds, and not necessarily as something that suggests zoning "produces" evil.

It is thought-provoking, though, because it is an issue that affects so many people. (Last time I checked, I believe Houston is the only major American city that does not have any zoning regulations in place). For something that has such wide applications, and whose roots we can trace back to a single event 90 years ago, it can't be "wrongheaded" to question its merits/purpose and think about changing it.

12-03-2006, 07:59 PM	#5
wantedLOX Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 420 Senior Member	However, the writer assumes that (for the most part) people behave in a way that is in the best interest of others. Life experience for anyone over the age of 13 proves otherwise. It's not necessarily that they have the best interest of others in mind; I think it has more to do with the belief that rational self-interest, when left unpressured by restrictions such as zoning, has a way of benefitting all parties involved. It's all very theoretical and philosophical, I know, but there isn't a lot of recent precedent for us to know whether it would work or not. For the past 100 years or so, America as a whole, and especially places like New York City, have developed more regulation for everything. And anyone with a knowledge of NYC Zoning history is aware that NYC Zoning Regulations came about because one particular building (the Equitable Building) was built in such a way that, had development been allowed to continue in that fashion, adequate light and air for existing (and subsequent smaller buildings) would be put in jeopardy. True. However, one has to wonder just how development would have proceeded without the very reactionary zoning regulations were put in place. Somehow, before 1916, the city got along without zoning. I don't know, it just seems somewhat unjust for such pervasive regulations to be set up for all future developers in response to a single event. And that brings up another example of the pros and cons of zoning: surely, a lot of us here appreciate the classic "setback" NYC skyscraper, which developed in direct response to those regulations requiring sunlight to reach down into the street. But a few decades later, when Modernism arrived, look what happened: we started gaining all those dreaded plazas, with their accompanying un-setbacked boxes. The reason for doing so was the same: allow light to reach the street. The result, however, was much different and much less favorable. While Zoning Regulations -- both in NYC and elsewhere -- are clearly not perfect, to label them "evil" -- as the writer here does -- is wrongheaded. I think he uses the label, again, purely on philosophical grounds, and not necessarily as something that suggests zoning "produces" evil. It is thought-provoking, though, because it is an issue that affects so many people. (Last time I checked, I believe Houston is the only major American city that does not have any zoning regulations in place). For something that has such wide applications, and whose roots we can trace back to a single event 90 years ago, it can't be "wrongheaded" to question its merits/purpose and think about changing it.
	Quote