Where the Grass is Grayer

For the sake of preserving "green space," a city councilman is trying to make it a crime for homeowners to pave over their own lawns in Queens -- a place, one resident points out, where good people go to get away from nature:

…Angela Casaro stepped outside to voice her preference for brick over grass.

"Lawns have ticks and disease and worms and stuff," she said. "This way, it's safe and sterile… I love nature and I love grass, but I don't want my family exposed to disease."

Her son follows up with a non-Lyme-disease-alarmist argument:

"Either way," Mr. Casaro said, "I don't think the city should be able to tell you what to do with your own property."

Comments

[KipEsquire]

Since it rains in Queens on occasion, perhaps they'd like to declare the entire borough a protected "wetlands area."

[Dylan]

I'm not sure I buy her argument about the high risk of disease from a lawn, and I certainly wouldn't want to pave over mine (if I had one), but whatever. It's their lawn. They're not cutting off other peoples' access to grass and nature. There are plenty of green places available to the public in NYC -- nobody's trying to pave over Prospect Park or anything.

[Jennifer]

I read this yesterday and I don't blame them at all. If I had a small lawn I'd rather pave it than have to mow it. Actually, I'd turn my yard into either a rock garden or a sculpture garden.

[Ed]

Why doesn't Queens just seize the property? Call it "blighted" or something?
Laws take time, and dammit, innocent grass is dying! DYING!

[joe]

Suburban? That lot they show in the picture is not suburban.

Common English parlance lacks enough words to describe different types of neighborhoods. Urban means highrises and facades on the sidewalks, suburban means lots of grass, and people are left in a muddle to explain everything in between.

[Akira MacKenzie]

I don't know which is worse: The technocrats who want to make property rights moot by telling owners whether or not they pave over their lawns, or the urban hypochondriacs who have become so insulated from rural America that they're afraid of a few germs.

As someone who has grown up in rural Wisconsin, the latter attitude never ceases to amaze, and slightly disgust, me. What a bunch of spineless whimps. If you're so afraid of disease, go live a plastic bubble.

[R C Dean]

joe, could you explain to Mr. Casaro the error of his ways. I mean, the selfish naivete in the statement:

I don't think the city should be able to tell you what to do with your own property.

just boggles the mind, no?

[joe]

Some of us are just crazy enough to think that you should think about how your actions will effect other people, RC.

I know, it's a foreign concept to you.

[Jaybird]

People who pave over their lawns are free riders.

I am busy generating Oxygen out of their CO2 and they aren't providing anything!

[Herrick and His Balls]

How does someone paving their lawn affect other people? It's not like their piling garbage in their yard, in which the local government would have the right to ticket the person since the smell of the garbage is an actual nuisance to their neighbors. I can't think of a single way that someone paving their lawn affects anyone not living on the property.

[joe]

It uglifies the street, at a minimum.

I could get into stormwater runoff and such, but actually, the core issue of whether you should be able to force your neighbors to live in a less-attractive neighborhood is most interesting by itself.

Prediction: someone will assert, in an extremely pissy manner, than selling your home and moving into another one is much less of a burden than having a reasonably attractive front yard.

[Brett]

I guess it's a foreign concept to me as well, since I can't fathom how paving over grass on your own property affects other people.

It's all about control and who has it.

[Rhywun]

I think the real issue is parking, and that the city correctly has an interest in controlling the amount of traffic on public roads. But yeah, requiring a lawn on your property is a bit odious. So the correct solution is to leave things the way they are: pave all you want but don't turn it into a parking lot.

[Jennifer]

It uglifies the street, at a minimum.

Good Lord, Joe. I'll agree with laws which state that my neighbors can't fill their yards with garbage, or put in a stinky outhouse or something which actually effects their neighbors, but you are defning "effect" as "having to look at something ugly?" Who gets to decide what is ugly, anyway? I thought that pretty brick-laid lawn was prettier than a lawn full of brown winter grass.

[Realish]

The Washington Post has a long story today about stormwater runoff and the immense damage it's doing to drinking water supplies. It raises the price of cleaning water. So yeah -- covering lawn with impervious surfaces affects other people. Much like everything we do.

I don't have a particular opinion about the restriction -- doesn't seem any sillier than a whole panoply of zoning restrictions across the country.

The ideal solution would be a lawn covered with native, drought-resistant species. But if the naturephobes are scared of sterile, herbicide-soaked, tidy green lawns, I can only imagine the terror that would be provoked by actual plants.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Who gets to decide what is ugly, anyway?

Why, the people involved in zoning, of course. In other words, people like... joe!

[Native NYer]

I agree with Rhywun, most of the poeple who paved over their lawns in my section of the Bronx have done so to park a second car. Which sucks, because they are taking legal spots on the street.

That said, it's hard to keep grass (or even weeds) growing in a 8' x 6' lot in permanent shade. My inlaws have a yard of black packed dirt, I bet concrete would looks nicer.

[downstater]

If the property values of those around the newly paved yard can be demonstrated to have fallen because of said paving, should this lady have to compensate her neighbors?

I think joe raises a good question about regulating aesthetics. While taste is certainly subjective, it is also true that an Addam's family style house next door can hurt your property's value.

I'll have to chew on this one.

[Herrick and His Balls]

Now, the runoff justification might actually be a legitimate reason to prevent people from paving their lawns if paved lawns say lead to neighbors getting their basements flooded. Aesthetics is a much bogus reason though and if that is the only justification, then the regulation blows ass.

[Number 6]

Akira-Here in the hinterlands, such decisions are made by homeowners' associations?groups that make the Soviet Ministry of Culture look liberal.

Joe may or may not have a point about storm water. I don't know enough about city drainage, let alone city dranage in Queens, to comment. There is, however, a point to be made about property values. If a paved lawn lowers property values in Queens (anything causing property in Queens to become less attractive boggles the mind), then the neighbors have a legitimate gripe.

The flip side, of course, is that it's difficult to draw a sensible line. In the subdivision in which I grew up, the homeowner's association would arrive bearing pitchforks if you left the garage door open for too long. The houses were also required to have wood shingle roofs, one of which would invariably ignite every Fourth of July. Anyone who painted their house an unapproved color risked extraordinary rendition to a prison archipelago run by Martha Stewart.

[Jennifer]

If the property values of those around the newly paved yard can be demonstrated to have fallen because of said paving, should this lady have to compensate her neighbors?

What if property values fall because my neighbor is an ugly Homer Simpson clone who always lounges in his hammock in the yard whenever a potential buyer drops by? What if property values fall because a "nigger" (well, let's say "Arab" nowadays) moves into the neighborhood? What if property values fall because my yard is full of dandelions rather than some super-expensive variety of grass that the neighbors think is prettier?

[joe]

Jennifer, "Who gets to decide what is ugly, anyway? I thought that pretty brick-laid lawn was prettier than a lawn full of brown winter grass."

Short answer, the public. Long answer, you need to establish reasonable regulations and appeals procedures that are responsive to competing interests, the public's values, the homeowners' right to enjoy their property, and the need to make the regulations as minimally intrusive and burdensome as possible.

I think a rock garden is better than a dead lawn, too. But look at the photo in the article. That's not a rock garden. That's a parking space, and it's ugly.

[joe]

You're right about the difficulty of keeping grass growing in such a small space. Especially if it's at the back of a busy sidewalk. My house, which is 6 feet off the sidewalk, has a raised planting bed where the doomed patch of lawn used to be, that we fill with perennials.

Jennifer, it's a myth that people of other races moving into your neighborhood causes property values to fall. A cherished myth, but one that has been demonstrably demolished over the past couple of decades. Panicked racists flooding the market can cause property values to fall, and in doing so, cause a neighborhood to change from middle class white to poor and black, but your statement is based on confusing cause and effect.

Also, the Constitution doesn't forbid discrimination based on building appearance, as it does discrimination based on race.

[Number 6]

On a purely personal note, though, I'm still astounded by the desire of so many people to live in an asphalt and concrete rat warren.

[Jennifer]

Also, the Constitution doesn't forbid discrimination based on building appearance, as it does discrimination based on race.

Neither does the Constitution ALLOW it. Unless you now say "We are only allowed to do what the Constitution says; all other rights are reserved for the government?"

[MP]

joe, could you explain to Mr. Casaro the error of his ways. I mean, the selfish naivete in the statement: "I don't think the city should be able to tell you what to do with your own property."

The real naivety is that any NYer would think that they have any freedom to do what they'd like with their own property in the first place. Everything here is regulated.

[downstater]

On a purely personal note, though, I'm still astounded by the desire of so many people to live in an asphalt and concrete rat warren.

I value being close to conveniences, attractions that I enjoy and my place of employment. I have also only seen one rat in all my city dwelling life.

[smacky]

You know, right before Thanksgiving, while driving around my hometown running errands, I noticed that there is a street that I frequently drive on called "Herrick". It was then that I realized why, after all these years, I have always been mentally fixated on gay sex while driving on this street. I was never able to figure it out until now. Go figure.

Thank you, Herrick (and His Balls).

[dhex]

ugly is a hard peg to hang one's hat on.

[Madog]

It's funny, because there are places out West where its illegal for you to HAVE grass in your front lawn.

[Krybo Amgine]

Short answer, the public. Long answer, you need to establish reasonable regulations and appeals procedures that are responsive to competing interests, the public's values, the homeowners' right to enjoy their property, and the need to make the regulations as minimally intrusive and burdensome as possible.

...and a pony!!

[Lemur]

just another reason to move to the suburbs where idiots like "joe" can't control your life...

[Number 6]

Downstater-I guess I should point out that I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with living in an East-Coast style city. I'm just saying that I don't see the appeal. I'm fan of having something resembling culture and civilization close by as well-I just can't stand the congestion of places like New York. Personally, I prefer a middle ground between the extremes of New York and the hinterland. In other words, a mid-sized city with some space built in works just fine for me.

Oddly enough, I saw rats a number of times when I lived in DC (actual norvegicus, not just the political type), and on a couple of my visits to New York.

[nmg]

Some of us are just crazy enough to think that you should think about how your actions will effect other people, RC.

There is a difference between thinking about your actions and recruiting the state to enforce others to share your conclusions. You may think it's your duty to have a lawn so that your neighbors can enjoy it but the whole point of a free society is that your neighbors shouldn't be able to force you to do it.

And nevermind the fact that the article managed to easily find examples of neighbors who DON'T want your to put in a lawn. Sheesh.

But no, why consider those things when you can just railroad the city council into coercing everyone to make their yard to your liking? Sounds pretty cool.

nmg

[Stretch]

Short answer, the public. Long answer, you need to establish reasonable regulations and appeals procedures that are responsive to competing interests, the public's values, the homeowners' right to enjoy their property, and the need to make the regulations as minimally intrusive and burdensome as possible.

Joe, what if the public's value on a certain block is to have paved lawns? Obviously, this has a practical value to the homeowner, but say that the public on a block finds certain types of paving more attractive than the average lawn? Should the city be able to outlaw having grass on your property?

Water runoff is a real issue, but one which should be able to be solved by requiring adequate drainage. Maybe that's not possible, but it seems a simple enough solution.

[Max]

Couple of points-
1. I know this will be v unpopular here- but people like rules- especially when it comes to the largest single expense they will make. HOAs are growing so fast it will soon become close to impossible to buy a truely "stand alone" house.
2. Alot of Queens is very nice, not all, but alot-and is very green when compared to Manhattan.
3. It is all about the water run-off. Water kills buildings. Grass (and dirt) soaks up water- paving pushes it into your neighbors yard (and basement).

[R C Dean]

Some of us are just crazy enough to think that you should think about how your actions will effect other people, RC.

You, me, and Jesus are all in agreement that this is an excellent moral principle, joe.

Some of us just don't think that every moral principle should be enforced by minions of the all-powerful state, that's all.

[Stretch]

"Lawns have ticks and disease and worms and stuff," she said. "This way, it's safe and sterile... I love nature and I love grass, but I don't want my family exposed to disease."

One of my favorite things about living in NYC was noticing just how tenacious life is. Weeds and such grow regularly along the bottom of buildings. You would think that in an environment completely paved with stone, concrete and tar that life would be unable to find it's way to the surface. Far from it. If this lady thinks that a thin layer of brick will prevent her from having to routinely remove those icky weeds and that disease ridden moss, she's got another thing coming.

Besides that, she's totally paranoid. If she's so concerned about disease look to the rats first, and the worms second.

[dcpi]

As an actual resident of Queens (Astoria) I have witnessed actual lawns being paved over ... funny thing is the property values in the neighborhood keep going up. I am sure that they are higher now than 12 or 24 months ago.

Perhaps, Joe, to make Queens housing more affordable (a major problem here in Queens according to Ferrar and the other Dems), we should required that ALL of the lawns be paved.

Yeah, that's the ticket...

[Pro Libertate]

Paving, xeriscaping, what's the difference?

[Russ D]

I can't see how storm water runoff is any more dangerous than the gardening chemicals people throw all over their lawns.

Some of us are just crazy enough to think that you should think about how your actions will effect other people

There's a nice blanket excuse for everything.

[downstater]

just another reason to move to the suburbs where idiots like "joe" can't control your life...

There are suburbs in this area with far more stringent regulations on what you can and can't do to your home. These are in place to keep the area from resembling the city where homes are allowed to resemble a structure someone actually lives in as opposed to one stuck in perpetual model home state.

[Herrick and His Balls]

60 minutes last night was a bit on a similar topic. I don't know who I hated more, the people in Chevy Chase who prevented a guy from tearing down a house he bought and building a new one or the rich douche bags with 1 kid buying huge ugly-ass mansions in the exurbs.

[bubba]

I have only one question: What were the rules when the homeowner in question purchased the property? Did the homeowner have representation if the rules were changed later?

I don't understand why it's bad for homeowners to build parking spaces. Doesn't this reduce the number of cars parked on the street? To the benefit of all?

I live in a Texas suburb that takes deed restrictions seriously. I choose to live here because the contrast with Houston's lack of zoning is obviously pleasant. Do I wish I could paint my house purple? Maybe, but it's a small price to pay if it means my neighbors can't have cars up on blocks in the street. Hell, they're not even allowed to park in the street for more than a day or two.

Hooray for Stepford, so long as the rules are laid down BEFORE people start moving in. If I lived a few miles West, I'd be damned if I would let some pinko tell me what I could or could not burn in my front yard.

[zach]

Is Joe really arguing that attractiveness should be adequate grounds for a government to mess with your property?

What if The People decide that we're sick of seeing ugly girls? Should we require them to undergo plastic surgery? Or on the other hand, if The People decide that plastic surgery in general is unattractive, should we ban it? Or require a certain level of artistry, to be judged by the people?

[Pro Libertate]

Ah, but downstater, the suburbs screw you through deed restrictions, not through government fiat. I distain the former, but the latter strikes me as more insidious. . .I think. On the other hand, I rather despise the way the way that deed restrictions have run amok (What! A basketball hoop? Where I can SEE IT!!!!!???? AAAIIIIIYYYYYEEEEEE!!!), and I certainly don't like the little tyrants on resident boards any more than I'm fond of petty technocrats (present technocratic company excepted, of course).

To avoid this degenerating into a Rush thread, I won't say anything about suburbian charms, subdivisions, or anything like that 🙂

[Stretch]

I don't understand why it's bad for homeowners to build parking spaces. Doesn't this reduce the number of cars parked on the street? To the benefit of all?

It's not so easy. Houses with a zoned garage or parking space still take a space on the street, as it's illegal to park in front of them. In theory, an unzoned parking space does not have the same limitation, but then anyone who wants to can block you in, effectively ruining your free parking. This is often solved by putting cones or trash cans in front of your parking space, thus reserving it for your sole use and again taking a space on the street.

[Don Mynack]

My front yard has grass in it, but the undersoil is hard-packed clay. Water runs off it like it's cement. Should I be forced to replace the clay with some other, more water absorbing soil, to combat "storm runoff"? BTW - how much freaking water can a dinky Queens yard hold, anyway?

[Jared]

Homeowners associations dictate what kind of swing set you can build, if at all. You need permission to build sheds. And adding on to your deck? Permission and forms! And there are mandatory dues to pay too.

But hey, its private, so its ok. Its not like the authority pushing you around is the government, its private.

Truth is, the only free place to be is rural. Get a bunch of a land, surround yourself with trees, and then build 50 foot statues of yourself, dump all your trash on your lawn, prop up cars on cinder blocks. Cause you can. That's freedom.

[downstater]

zach, your analogies don't quite hold up. Ugly people are not the same as ugly property.

[Hakluyt]

zach,

joe would argue that things economic aren't as important as your bodily integrity. He says that this wisdom comes from God.

[Pro Libertate]

Jared,

Freedom is. . .building an obelisk in your front yard.

Hmm. I'm thinking someone with artistic talent should start a one-panel comic strip with a naked couple of no discernable sex in various poses and a caption completing the phrase, 'Freedom is" every day. Freedom is. . .building your own nuclear arsenal. That sort of thing.

[zach]

I was thinking about it further downstater, and you're right. So let's make it cars.

As of this moment, all PT Cruisers cars are banned, because I think they're ugly. And that's grounds enough to ban them, because enough people agree with me that they're ugly.

[kevrob]

My late Uncle George lived in Queens, where he and my Aunt Kay lived on one floor of a duplex. My grandmother and Great-Uncle Nace occupied the other floor. The yard, as it was, was tiny, and would have been a cinch to mow, even with a small, non-powered push-mower. George so hated lawn work that he ripped out any grass and replaced it with non-traditional ground cover - some sort of creeping vine with reddish leaves, IMS. I imagine he didn't have a runoff problem.

I'll accept that runoff from paved surfaces could wind up in your neighbor's basement, but damage to the drinking water is not a New York problem, as the city gets its H2O piped from upstate.

Kevin

[Hakluyt]

joe's commentary is based on what he calls "reasonable" regulations. There is the rub. What is a "reasonable" regulation? Given joe's current penchant for vulgar majoritarianism (he is in league with Justice Scalia apparently) joe has concluded that what ia reasonable is what is popular with 50% of the population.

[downstater]

Pro Libertate,

I'm referring to some older suburban municipalities in the area known for dictates on the books about grass heights, tree branches lower than 5 feet from the ground, etc. etc.

My only real point is that suburbs are certainly not free of government regulation, and in some cases may be even more onerous. I'm not knocking suburbs, I'm just saying that individual results may vary.

[zach]

Hak, I'm inclined to agree with him that things economic aren't as important as bodily integrity. I suppose the difference is that I don't want to project those values onto others, with a few exceptions.

And of course I don't derive my wisdom from God. But I didn't catch joe claiming that either.

[Pro Libertate]

downstater,

Oh, that's pure evil. I'll lower my branches in solidarity this evening. Of course, I'm in Florida, where zoning is a quaint metaphysical theory, so I can probably get away with it.

[Hakluyt]

zach,

Oh joe did. Back when he was stating that one's job isn't as important as one's bodily integrity or what one thinks. He stated specifically that this was because the latter two come from God. I nearly rolled on the ground laughing.

I think they are equally important for different reasons. Indeed, its hard for me to have bodily integrity if I am not free to carry on the economic activities I want to. You really can't have one type of liberty without another; they are synergystic. joe doesn't realize this.

[South Florida Native]

What is this "basement" thing you all keep talking about?

[zach]

I see it as a matter of degrees. Bodily integrity, etc. are more important to me than economics because I need my entire body to be as happy as I find myself (certain parts especially); whereas I can have a good time even with my fairly limited economic resources.

Of course, the amount of enjoyment I can get from my limited economic resources decreases when people tell me what I do and don't get to do with them.

[R C Dean]

No, no, Hakluyt. You don't understand that the original God-given freedom is the freedom to starve.

Or the freedom to knuckle under to your betters, I forget which came first.

But they are often, as you say, synergistic.

[M1EK]

Yes the suburbs are a LOT stricter about what you can do than most urban neighborhoods.

And NO, pulling parked cars off the street is NOT a positive for everybody else - it means cars will drive faster; and the public right-of-way is being used less efficiently.

And YES, stormwater runoff is (seriously) the reason for most paving restrictions (we have a lot of that here).

[Hakluyt]

Government "solutions" to land use serve the government and those who have its ear first and everyone else second. The "solutions" impose large costs on society while benefitting a small portion of the population.

[Jennifer]

it means cars will drive faster; and the public right-of-way is being used less efficiently.

So the slower you drive, the more efficient use you make of the public right-of-way? I'm not following your train of thought, here.

[nmg]

Is there no government intrusion into personal choice that today's modern liberals won't defend?

I am constantly amazed. Everytime I think to myself "surely here is an action that even modern liberals will abjure" I turn around to find vociferous defense of the intrusive action.

I believe that abortion may be the only thing that modern liberals defend from government intrusion. Amazing.

Oh yeah, and surfing porn at libraries.

I staunchly support both the freedom to have abortions and the freedom to download porn but it's rather dishearting that these two pretty much cover the sum of the modern liberal commitment to "liberty". It's depressing.

nmg

[Hakluyt]

nmg,

I have to say that I agree. Liberals have abandoned any pretense that they favor individual liberty broadly. They just simply statists with one answer to anything that might befoul their sight - government regulation and/or ownership.

[Kevin Carson]

joe,

I can see having a right not to suffer from toxic substances, stench or loud noise emanating from your neighbor's property. But claiming his failure to provide what you consider an attractive view is taking it a bit far.

And in practice, I suspect that such aesthetic restrictions will usually cater to the sensibilities of yuppies who don't like looking at my compost pile or rabbit hutches. Ever see that Doonesbury cartoon where they guy is gloating that his clothesline lowers the value of the neighbor's McMansion by $200,000? That's kind of my attitude, as well.

[Brett]

just another reason to move to the suburbs where idiots like "joe" can't control your life...

Depends on the city and the burb. I live a few miles from downdown Dallas, and live free from such ridiculous regulations and rules (and HOAs). But I've got friends in suburbs whose lives are controlled by HOAs seemingly run by Lenin.

[joe]

"On a purely personal note, though, I'm still astounded by the desire of so many people to live in an asphalt and concrete rat warren."

It's the little touches of green that allow denser communities to avoid becoming "asphalt and concrete rat warrens."

Lemur, I work in the suburbs now. Just try to add a rental unit to your property out is "God's country." Go ahead, I dare you. Yeah, suburbs are sooooooo much more free.

Jared is right, with "Truth is, the only free place to be is rural. Get a bunch of a land, surround yourself with trees, and then build 50 foot statues of yourself, dump all your trash on your lawn, prop up cars on cinder blocks. Cause you can." When your lifestyle and living arrangements cause you to bump up against people more often, it is natural and necessary for there to be greater regulation. When nobody can see or give a damn about what you do, there will be less.

[joe]

Jennifer asked earlier about ugly people and ugly weeds vs. ugly pavement, and zach asked about ugly cars vs. ugly buildings. There is an important distinction here, based on the permanance.

Construction vs. decoration/planting/furnishing/parking. When you build or renovate a building, or put down pavement, you are making a permanent change to the community, in a way that letting dendelions grow or parking your car in your driveway does not. When you move out, the next owners could very easily reseed the lawn, buy a nicer car, an put tasteful furniture on the front porch, with little effort and cost. Now compare lawn care to removing the three inches of pavement and five inches of gravel necessary to un-pave a yard. Compare putting new porch furniture to moving a building back eight feet.

This is the same reason why there are building codes about the size of doorways, but the city won't mess with you if you put a chair across half your doorway. In the former case, the builder is making a choice not only for himself and his first buyer, but for everyone who lives in that house for the entirety of its existence - the next 200-600 years. Undoing what is built in, whether its pavement or a wall, is a much bigger deal than undoing something temporary.

[joe]

Kevin, once again, there's an urban/suburban/rural distinction here. When you live in the suburbs, you live in your house and in your car. When you live in the country, you live on your spread.

When you live in the city, you really do live on your block, on your street, in your neighborhood, and in your city.

[Jennifer]

So Joe, your whole argument in favor of building codes is not for the current owner's benefit, but for the benefit of future owners? Why not instead lessen the legal restrictions so that future owners, in addition to current ones, are free to make whatever the hell changes they want? If a future owner wants a building eight feet further back from the street, they can buy a different house.

[joe]

Lessening the legal restrictions on future owners makes it cheaper to rebuild the walls in a house, HOW, exactly, Jennifer?

And where is this magical land where allowing builders to get away with crappy building increases the supply of well-built properties?

[Jennifer]

Joe, I'm more concerned with your inherent assumption than what I do NOW with MY property must be curtailed for the theoretical benefit of someone to whom I might theoretically sell the house later. How th ehell do you know I won;'t sell my house to someone who has the same taste as I? After all, if a potential buyer doesn't like my house. . . he won't buy it.

[Jennifer]

Can I build extra cabinets in my kitchen, Joe, or will that infringe on the rights of a future buyer who wants more kitchen floor space? Can I turn two small bedrooms into one big one, or will that infringe on the rights of a future buyer who wants my house, with two bedrooms?

[Hakluyt]

joe really is a Vogon.

[mac]

I laugh at some stuff here. The libertarian outrage at zoning regulations is one thing to laugh at. I mean, zoning regulations go back to the beginning of history, when ug and got pissed off when kor cut down all the trees in his favorite hunting ground and used them for firewood.

[Serafina]

I'll take my chances with city zoning over suburban zoning plus homeowners associations any day.

[Jon P]

Joe, I don't think you quite the hang of the concept: mind your own f**king business.

[joe]

Jennifer, that what you construct will leave a legacy that goes beyond you is not "theoretical."

As for your other questions, sufficient room to flee a fire in an emergency (in the example of door width) is a necessity, while cabinets vs. floor space and one vs. two bedrooms in a mere preference. The former is more appropriate for regulation than the latter, particularly when we are talking about the interior of a home, rather than its public face.

[Ironchef]

mac

As old as you think they are (and provide no evidence), that doesn't make it right. Yes, there is plenty of historical evidence of urban planning - a form of zoning regulations. But we are discussing private property.

I don't know why people get upset over war these days, I mean, c'mon, people having been waging war ever since they could pick up a stick. Geez.

[joe]

chef,

Regulations that everybody has to abide by, that define what are and what are not your rights, are a means to avoid war.

[dhex]

this is one of the strangest hit and run threads ever.

[M1EK]

"So the slower you drive, the more efficient use you make of the public right-of-way? I'm not following your train of thought, here."

Those were two completely separate benefits.

1. Cars will drive slower, so we don't need to go stick speed humps or other traffic calming abominations on residential streets.

2. We make more efficient use of non-tax-generating and non-economic-activity-generating space.

[joe]

Jennifer,

A street that is used for driving, parking, walking, and stickball is being used for efficiently than one that is given over entirely for driving.

[Anonymous]

Get it, Jen, after years of parents trying to get their kids to not play in the streets joe and M1EK want the little darlings out there playing stickball.

Gives a whole new meaning to parental concern, don't it?

[zach]

Joe, this really is ridiculous. You're trying to talk about permanency of a change and ease of reversing it, and that's all well and good, but the point remains that the grounds on which you want to mess with someone's personal property is attractiveness!

I understand that as a liberal guy you're going to value the common good over property rights. But this has nothing to do with the common good, unless your vision thereof is a world in which you can do nothing that might be unattractive or inconvenient to other people.

[keith]

In theory, an unzoned parking space does not have the same limitation, but then anyone who wants to can block you in, effectively ruining your free parking. This is often solved by putting cones or trash cans in front of your parking space, thus reserving it for your sole use...

Maybe that's what polite people do, but then poltie people wouldn't be hacking in illegal driveways. I knew someone on a block in Bay ridge who got tired of a guy with an illegal driveway (they'll go so far as to hire someone to come by and chip away the curb so it looks legit) effectively commandeering a public parking space, so the person I knew started parking in front of the illegal driveway -- perfectly acceptable under the law, since it was the illegal driveway that was in the wrong.

Of course, he came out one day and found his car had been completely trashed. Keyed, hammered with a bat, windows broken, etc. Guy with the illegal driveway didn't have a clue as to what could have possibly happened.

And yes, all of this was preceded by the person I knew calling the city and lodging a formal complaint aboutthe driveway. The local Fox affiliate even did a story about the preponderance of such things in Brooklyn. Didn't change anything.

As for lawns -- if you want them, why the hell would you move to New York City? And as for that crazy lady's phobia about icky germs and worms -- well, the same. If you're afraid of filth and disease, why would you move to New York city. She honestly things not having a 2x2 patch of grass is going to give her a fresh and sterile environment where never the germs shall dwell?

All of this makes me want to hurry up my latest genetically engineered monstrosity: the ratcoon. We have plenty of each separate animal, but imagien the glory when they're merged into one hideous beast!

I smell a Sci-Fi Channel Original Movie...

[Eric the .5b]

And yes, all of this was preceded by the person I knew calling the city and lodging a formal complaint aboutthe driveway.

So the guy filed a complaint about the person with the driveway - then parked his car in front of the driveway?

Bright. Real bright.

[zach]

...Alright. The only point I was trying to make was that, since I know joe's ideal world is not one "in which you can do nothing that might be unattractive or inconvenient to other people", all he was doing was displaying his lack of concern for the property rights side of the equation.

I don't think he has anointed himself anything. I think he just enjoys arguing. Nothing wrong with that.