Zoning - discussion

See attached image...

This diagram is repeated along the highway in Massachusetts and beyond. Ironically, I have heard that Massachusetts have more lax zoning laws than other states -- perhaps because construction companies love getting in bed with liberal politicians -- legally siphoning money to land they own plus construction unions?

Logic:
* Government, in most US states, allows construction of residential areas in generally undesirable areas.
* The (ONGOING) construction is funded by banks which still have not learned their lesson from 2007-2009.
* My opinion is that in the long run, this burdens both our society and our economy because that cheap land is cheap for a reason -- air pollution, noise, crime, poor access.
* Should governments make stricter zoning laws? Alternatively (or in combination with), should governments enact legislation for banks financing construction companies that would limit such financing when the companies build on undesirable land?

What should areas next to highways be zoned for? I'd prefer mixed use areas be developed next to transportation nodes, as opposed to far away.

Areas next to highways should be zoned commercial or reserved as a tree buffer.

There's no question the houses are close to the on-ramp on the highway. But there's no quality of life. It's not a community for children or anyone who opens the windows. It's loud and there's incredible amounts of soot from a busy highway. The porches are pretty but unusable. Even from closed windows, the soot will enter a room and scar lungs a further health issue which is transferred to the public by way of lost productivity being sick and (if Obama has his way) we have to pay for all those sick people.

I chose an egregious example of poor zoning because of its indefensibility, yet it's happening all over the place.

Here is one of the developments.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie...04211&t=h&z=18

Just check the surrounding area. There are plenty of places taken by small commercial establishments close to the highway but not close enough that the highway soot or noise would affect the air. And these places aren't on a hill, which magnifies the pollution and noise problem ten-fold. This land--this little nook-- was available, and they could build there, so they did.

I think if a transit system is being built that requires a giant tree buffer, it says something about the logic of the transit system. :o

But honestly, if people want to live in a cluster by the highway, why is that so bad? They theoretically consume less gas than someone in some exurb. We let people smoke after all.

The year after college, I lived about ninety feet from a freeway, and there wasn't really a tree line. It was basically on the other side of an old river bed. My bedroom window *which, granted, didn't directly face the freeway and was further back from it than most of the house* was frequently open during the warmer months. It wasn't a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I think if a transit system is being built that requires a giant tree buffer, it says something about the logic of the transit system. :o

---

Falsehoods.... First off, I didn't say it needed a "giant" tree buffer, and second of all, it doesn't say anything about its logic, only its level of pollution (noise + particulate) output.

Quote:

---

But honestly, if people want to live in a cluster by the highway, why is that so bad? They theoretically consume less gas than someone in some exurb. We let people smoke after all.

---

1) Again, just look at the map. Other, much more viable places are a few hundred feet away. There's not much of a time difference between a 30 second drive to the on-ramp and a 5 minute drive. If a 5-minute drive is "next" to a highway, that gives an enormous area. Highways aren't rail lines with no parking spaces -- they are transportation arteries.
But noooo, let's build new housing on the cheapest land imaginable and hope the occupants don't mind.
2) Again, it's a public health and safety issue. People should be able to live in their houses, have a conversation, let their kids play outside. None of that is possible (i'm saying if you're SANE) when you live on a hill a few feet away from a busy highway. It affects everyone else who then has to deal with these peoples' attitudes at work, their lost tax revenue, their kids' obesity, and their own public health insurance costs (more so with Obamacare).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

The year after college, I lived about ninety feet from a freeway, and there wasn't really a tree line. It was basically on the other side of an old river bed. My bedroom window *which, granted, didn't directly face the freeway and was further back from it than most of the house* was frequently open during the warmer months. It wasn't a problem.

---

Not enough detail. Busy highway? Real highway? What's a "problem" to you? How do you know it wasn't a problem? Ever go outside and run around near the highway like a kid might? Plus, take a look at the map. It's not 90 feet -- more like 30 for those houses that are opposite the highway, and the houses are on a hill, which means they suck up more of the pollution from the highway and the noise is multiplied by several fold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

1) Again, just look at the map. Other, much more viable places are a few hundred feet away. There's not much of a time difference between a 30 second drive to the on-ramp and a 5 minute drive. If a 5-minute drive is "next" to a highway, that gives an enormous area. Highways aren't rail lines with no parking spaces -- they are transportation arteries.
But noooo, let's build new housing on the cheapest land imaginable and hope the occupants don't mind.

2) Again, it's a public health and safety issue. People should be able to live in their houses, have a conversation, let their kids play outside. None of that is possible (i'm saying if you're SANE) when you live on a hill a few feet away from a busy highway. It affects everyone else who then has to deal with these peoples' attitudes at work, their lost tax revenue, their kids' obesity, and their own public health insurance costs (more so with Obamacare).

---

Someone owns that land, right? So if the government isn't going to use eminent domain to buy a buffer zone on each side of a highway, it's not exactly fair to take some land for highways and then make the adjacent private land zoned for nothing besides trees.

But their attitudes at work and their kids obesity, seriously? That's what happens when your live near a highway? I grew up on a crowded island less than 2000 feet from a major highway and near a major urban thoroughfare. I now live with my window facing another major urban thoroughfare. I'm not obese or have a bad attitude at work.

Town planning and land use is important, zoning is part of that. I'd be more inclined to move/change transportation than peoples' cluster homes, neighborhoods or villages. But Americans seem to love highways, trucks, buses, and cars more than trains.

When things get congested the first reaction is to widen a road, add a road, build a super-highway or bypass and THEN figure out where to put the homes. It's backward. Health of the heart should be priority, not just the arteries. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Someone owns that land, right? So if the government isn't going to use eminent domain to buy a buffer zone on each side of a highway, it's not exactly fair to take some land for highways and then make the adjacent private land zoned for nothing besides trees.

---

As I said in my opening post, it's a zoning issue. Businesses don't really open their windows and they actually create a tree line between themselves and the highway *independently* of the government, because they actually care for their employees. There are plenty of businesses by the side of the highway, both industrial and commercial. But these developments, financed by haywire government policy, are further nudged along by lax zoning laws. Someone just wanted to make a quick buck!

Quote:

---

But their attitudes at work and their kids obesity, seriously? That's what happens when your live near a highway? I grew up on a crowded island less than 2000 feet from a major highway and near a major urban thoroughfare. I now live with my window facing another major urban thoroughfare. I'm not obese or have a bad attitude at work.

---

This is totally different. The kids (if any) living there have nowhere to play. This land isn't New York where there are basketball courts everywhere. Oh, and you are 1 out of millions, so exceptions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Town planning and land use is important, zoning is part of that. I'd be more inclined to move/change transportation than peoples' cluster homes, neighborhoods or villages. But Americans seem to love highways, trucks, buses, and cars more than trains.

When things get congested the first reaction is to widen a road, add a road, build a super-highway or bypass and THEN figure out where to put the homes. It's backward. Health of the heart should be priority, not just the arteries. :(

---

In fact, I see many communities of smaller, older houses that were there before the highway was built (decades ago) that have a barrier separating the highway and themselves. That barrier isn't gigantic, but it's a barrier, and nothing like it has been done for those packaged apartment/condo communities you see built along I-95 and nearby highways.

If you're talking about those fugly sound barrier walls around freeways, then it's a local or state problem. Because here in mytown PA, when a new housing cluster is built close to those congested highways, they always erect a barrier wall at the same time. When they widen or expand in a zoned rural or agricultural area, they skip the barrier.

The owner of the land lobbies for zoning officers to call it based on their highest income potential---which means light industrial sells at a different dollar-per-acreage than residential. Multi-use zoning can be industrial/commercial, or light industry/residential, or commercial/residential. It takes citizens to push for residential zoning (it's the higher bar, requiring sidewalks, cross-walks, public water and sewer, municipal trash removal, bypass roads and access roads, etc).


EDIT to aggie: we're rather land locked between boros and municipalities. We need more housing but it's a nasty fight. A developer wanted to take agricultural land and build high-density apartments, right at the edge of 4 important cross-roads and entry/exit ramps to our main interstate highway artery.

It sounded great until the residents realized they would have to pay higher taxes for the influx of students (meaning another school or more teachers or more busing) and more commuters (wider entry/exit ramps, moving sewer and drainage pipes).

It took a huge citizen effort to block the development, because the county and township supervisors ONLY saw it as a great way to get more tax revenue.....