Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Zoning does not preserve wealth, it destroys it (or limits it). Zoning does, however, get some of the lost wealth back by preventing others from appropriating that value as well
|
Zoning is a tool to achieve various aims of a local government. Like a power hammer can build a home, or drive nails into your head, zoning's effect depends on how it is directed.
Within a stone throw (ok a half mile really) of my office in rich suburbia there is:
an area where home must include 3/4 acre plots to limit overbuilding;
an area where home can only cover X% of the property to limit "bigfoot" rebuilding;
a high rise apartment (the only one near here) built to provide low-income housing since some government entity deemed it was required for the city; and
a Historic district where the city recently decided no one can change their homes anymore.
At the least these do all sorts of increase/decrease in value. The low-income housing sure as shit doesn't provide wealth, and actually is a nuisance from all the sirens (its old folk housing- this wasn't racism Ty). So anyway, keep up your detailed analysis of zoning and Atticus' dry cleaner, but this has nothing to do with rent control.
Rent control would be closer to the city telling Atticus that anyone who got their shirts for .70$ back in 1985 still needs to have that price break, and have the right to expect the same volume. And even if Atticus needs 1.25$ to break even, and he doesn't have the capactiy to do the .70$ work plus the 2.50$ he can get from all the rich guys that moved into the neighborhood, it is just too f'ing bad.
