> The outright toxic projects that developers and city leaders routinely propose run at a least a couple of orders of magnitude above 0.01 percent.
This is true, but does not contradict my point. How many tiny projects are never run through anything or even considered because regular people don't have a mountain of cash/lawyers/etc. and simply comply with the law, while all those toxic projects hire lawyers to get variances?
How many two-family homes are never built or even considered because the zone is one-family? How many housing units have we lost this way?
We can certainly ask all kinds of questions about whether some forms of zoning are a good idea or not. Certainly many are outdated, illogical and/or counterproductive.
But the point is that everyone (whether they say so or not) acknowledged that at least some baseline of codified land use regulation -- a.k.a. "zoning" -- is necessary.
It's just a question of what kind -- and who should benefit.
I am not.
> The outright toxic projects that developers and city leaders routinely propose run at a least a couple of orders of magnitude above 0.01 percent.
This is true, but does not contradict my point. How many tiny projects are never run through anything or even considered because regular people don't have a mountain of cash/lawyers/etc. and simply comply with the law, while all those toxic projects hire lawyers to get variances?
How many two-family homes are never built or even considered because the zone is one-family? How many housing units have we lost this way?