Production in the informal and household economy is often virtually free from overhead, because it relies on spare capacity of ordinary household capital goods most people already own anyway.

For instance, when I was in the Houston area, I saw big name stores and restaurants that were able to blend with the nearby neighborhoods. This is because all of the buildings had similar brick exteriors, and all of the signs on the buildings were white. Even the McDonald’s logo on the building was white, and I don’t even recall seeing the ‘golden arches’ or any other big signs in the area.

Long story short, if commercial property had to meet certain aesthetic requirements, then I wouldn’t be as opposed to commercial activity taking place in a residential area. I don’t think anyone would like it if a big red and yellow McDonald’s popped up on their block, but they might not be as opposed if the design of the McDonald’s allowed it to blend with the neighborhood.

However, it has seemed to me that to the extent that whatever rules exist, existed at the time the homeowner purchased the home, then the residents comprise a localized, voluntary association of its “members”, and therefore does not have to me nearly so much of the “statist” baggage and objectional features of, in contrast, the Federal government. Of course having to obey ordinances/laws that come into being after one moves into the city, is still problematic to this line of though, but a prospective homeowner can at least get an idea as to the nature of likely future restrictions based on previous and current restrictions in place.

I remember as a youth being puzzled by the the term “incorporated city” and eventually came to the view that “oh, I see, it’s a corporation in many senses just as any other business, but whose product is a place to live, and whose customers are the residents who by moving there choose to contract with that business for the type of living environment that the city provides them”.

Of course other businesses don’t have their own police forces, etc.

So to me in this regard “small government is better” translates to “city government is ‘less bad’ than county government is less bad than state government is less bad than county government”.

Cheers,
John

In established areas, there are massive parking lots with x amount of spaces for x amount of s.f. and expected traffic. What some communities are now starting to address is the over paving has created a lot of hard surfaces which leads to water control issues and that the parking lots are never close to being full except at Christmas. Now the new thing is shared parking areas.

In zoning laws and covenants, you now cannot “live above the shop” which discourages small businesses because it is cheaper to live either upstairs or next to your business as part of the same property.

From what I have seen and know, there are planning consultants who work with a lot of incorporated villages, cities and towns and many of these have basically the same zoning rules (same consultants). If you want to start a business you may have to landscape (including what you can and cannot have, like a tree every 20′, have signs approved, colors approved, fences repaired at the discretion of the local burueacrat. If your trees and landscaping create a problem (the stuff the govt decided you needed), you are then cited to fix them. I do know one of these planners personally, and really like him, but when it came to his own house, he was upset at having to do things the code required.

Zoning does do one thing for all, it does increase the costs of building and doing business. It takes more money to hang out your shingle today. On top of zoning there are also subdivision covenents with square foot, roof pitch, exterior materials, etc. all subject to the builder’s approval.

I personally think zoning performs two things in reality: discriminates (it was rumored that one area of Mi had extremely tight zoning laws to prevent riff raff from moving in), creates more sprawl. Those highly regulated zoned communities have lots and lots of fights. Especially in the more well to do ones. They argue, sue, threaten to sue over wrong exterior, putting up a shed, having a boat outside, etc. many times over (because I’ve sat in meetings and listened to the bickering) than my non planned rural street.

Zoning is another layer of government to try to control behavior, not a system of managing land. As someone who has worked with zoning and zoning officials, overall, I am not impressed.

Indeed. Zoning’s also been a long-standing middle class subsidy — a way to keep the poor out of the neighborhood.

Other parts of Houston are filled with ship channels, ports, oil and chemical refineries, ship builders, rail yards, and so on. I would say the success of Houston has been enhanced by the freedom from zoning. Few cities in the world have this kind of mix of industrial uses.

It’s certainly assinine to claim that Palm Beach might have to put up with a landfill moving in next to million-dollar mansions. First a depression or sinkhole would have to open up! Don’t you think that might have a negative effect on nearby home-values? The property, now REQUIRING someone to fill it in, would best be served by turning it into a commercial land-fill, so that it could eventually be used as commercial or residential property. Otherwise you have to assume something that could never happen: someone buys $100K/per acre property, possibly levels perfectly good pre-existing buildings, and digs out perfectly buildable property in order to provide a place to ‘fill’.

How does LACK of zoning laws prevent a Walmart from opening and performing the function you ascribe to it?

And how would a Walmart affect a nation that has created far too many government union jobs that pay far too much for too little productive labor? Even if these workers performed a full 12 months of labor for WHATEVER amount of pay, if they’re not producing any exportable goods or service, then ultimately how are they going to pay for all the German goods they’ve been buying, be they through a Walmart or not??

But you go on to make a crazy statement like: ‘there is rarely anything detrimental about zoning laws.’

Just maybe, assuming you ignore all the ‘unseen consequences’.

And of course, completely ignore the traffic congestion issue by merely proclaiming it ‘laughable’.

And also ignore the concept of private property rights entirely.

Counter-arguments welcome…