Comment 42720

By BobInnes (registered) - website | Posted July 02, 2010 at 01:27:45

ASmith. Your response leads to the question - what was the original premise? If you bought when zoning laws existed and expected quiet enjoyment then no amount of the public good you describe will compensate for you having to listen to unavoidable banging. Noise was a cost the body shop and its customers externalized. Then consider zoning laws not existing as is the case more or less at the edge of small towns. Such properties, because of the possibility of noise and other problems, can never rise to the same level as where residentiality is assured. All parties therefore have an interest in creating zoning where none existed. Those with clout use government to raise standards for all at the cost of liberty for some. A free market response, no?

The point you raise is a good one though and is promoted by Jane Jacobs - diversity is a public good. I've seen a few examples around town and in Toronto. Anomalous warehouses, shops, even industrial buildings are grandfathered into residential neighbourhoods (non conforming use). It can work and answers the question of where the oddballs should go. It works better when there is a club handy that keeps behaviour reasonable, especially in crowded areas. Bylaws handle the normal stuff but the ultimate club is zoning. Zoning should be flexible, but not absent. I'm sure that that flexibility decreases the further from the lower city one gets. Your neighbourhood?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds