In the second entry in this series I made a very strong argument against zoning laws. After all, there’s no real reason why you should have to get in your car and drive to anything. The zoning that leads to this has never been put up to a ballot, and is about as democratic as everything else our government does, which is to say that it isn’t. For example, Houston put zoning up for referendum three separate times, and voters shot it down each time. The municipality did give itself the ability to do a lot of obnoxious regulations though, such as minimum parking lot requirements for businesses, which, and I don’t mean this in a gay way, can really destroy walkability. Then again, as we covered in part 4, so can Houston’s infestation of Crime-Americans. 

Found by searching “Houston crime”. It’s from a gang shooting.

In the third entry I took a good look at the finklefight around zoning. Namely, you can have your community destroyed by zoning, or even just being paved over – the Robert Moses option – or you can have your community destroyed by infinite “diversity,” the Jane Jacobs option. What you most definitely cannot have, goy, is some Israeli-style segregation where your community belongs to you.

I can’t pretend to have done the historical research to be sure, but I strongly suspect that E. Michael Jones is correct that these zoning laws are a top down way of socially engineering the forced atomization and destruction of local communities. After all, if you don’t have a reason to be invested in your close surroundings, since it’s just house after house with no reason to do anything but drive by, you’re much less willing and able to collectivize and fight back against (((section 8 housing))) or other neighbourhood destroying “enrichments.” You’re also less able to fight back politically on non-local issues, because you will be more atomized, have less people you can quickly call up and act politically with, and the same will be true for other places you visit. 

And in part 5 I covered the many tricks that they have of shoving the most degenerate and disgusting filth into your neighbourhood. We were even introduced to this smarmy piece of shit, Jon Mihevc, who spent three decades on the Toronto city council and bragged about overcoming the “NIMBYism” of the people whose neighbourhoods he was destroying with no-income housing and drug rehab centers. If they circle your community on a map and have it planned for “enrichment,” zoning laws are not a serious means of fighting back.

Jon Mihevc

What, you don’t want to be enriched by these Section 8ers? Get a load of this NIMBY!

To be clear, they’ve made it illegal to stop them moving in, and in fact your taxes subsidize this.

Having said all that, after the fourth part of my series I couldn’t help but think I had been too strong in condemning property usage restrictions. After all, what you do with your property affects others, and what others do with their property affects you. If someone on your street rents their house out to people and turns it into a crack den, that matters to you and your family. If someone puts some low income housing in your area, that affects you. To show the blatantly obvious, here’s Star Wars creator George Lucas doing exactly that.

 HuffPost (2012):

SAN FRANCISCO — Only weeks after neighborhood complaints forced filmmaker George Lucas to abandon plans to convert a renovated Marin County ranch into a state-of-the-art film production studio, the cinematic auteur is now working with a local community group to develop the site for low-income housing.

George Lucas is an annoying cunt who made two good movies, three if you count American Graffiti, and has parlayed that into many billions. He then sold the rights to Star Wars to Disney CEO (((Bob Iger))) who has been making billions churning out cultural filth under its name. Having said that, I’m not taking a side in this fight, because the San Francisconians are the most obnoxious and hypocritical cunts you will ever meet in your life, as we shall soon see.

CNET (2015):

When “Star Wars” creator George Lucas planned to build a Lucasfilm production studio on his Grady Ranch property in the affluent Marin County, California, he was met with staunch opposition. The local residents protested the project, citing increased traffic, ruined views and potential damage to the local environment. In 2012, Lucasfilm announced that it had scrapped the 263,701-square-foot project.

Glad someone’s thinking of the baby seals in Marin County.

Muh EnViROnMEnT is used for a lot of bullshit, but I can’t say whether these people are legitimate eco-antifas or whether they’re using that as a tactic to stop George Lucas from bringing traffic into their quiet, upscale Marin County neighbourhood. It’s clear that they perceive him to be changing their neighbourhood for the worse, and it should be non controversial that he is getting back at them by building low income housing to do exactly that, negatively impact their neighbourhood.

I’ll come back to this “muh traffic, muh views,” argument at the end of the piece, because things like this are legitimately complicated and it’s important to have non-ideological and productive opinions on these sorts of things. 

Marin County is one of the most affluent locations in the US, with a median household income of $90,839, and 7.7 percent of people living below the poverty line. According to his lawyer, Gary Giacomini, Lucas said, “We’ve got enough millionaires here. What we need is some houses for regular working people.”

When the proposal was first announced back in 2012, there was a predictable backlash from residents, who believed that affordable housing would bring crime into the area and lower property values; and head of the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents Carolyn Lenert said that the project was “inciting class warfare”.

Aerial view of part of Lucas’ ranch.

But that was 2015, have there been any updates?

SF Gate (2020):

The famed Star Wars director is suing the town of San Anselmo and a family that used to own his home to clear up a discrepancy over a property line near his house, reports the Marin Independent Journal. 

The move marks the latest sequel in a nearly decade-long series of land rights feuds, rejected developments and striking back against the NIMBYs. Eight years later, that housing project is still embattled and unbuilt.

Objections to the development from local residents at the time included the fear that light pollution from the studio would mean “our dark starry skies would be destroyed.”

Many wealthy, liberal Marin neighbors agreed that low-income housing is important, but would prefer that it be located in a community far, far away. County Supervisor Damon Connolly said at the time that the housing would “literally and figuratively change the landscape in Marinwood and Lucas Valley.”

We don’t need to go over this in detail again. Both sides of this are totally infuriating. These rich cunts, which includes conservatives, will happily conform to (((Hollywood narratives))) and shit all over poorer White People who have to live in crime ridden shitholes filled with “low-income Americans.” They’ll support putting the McMichaels away for life after they policed their neighbourhood from a Crime-American. They’ll gleefully attack the cops for putting away the criminals of colour, and they’ll obedience signal on how druggies should totally be given free drugs and a free license to commit crimes, while never in a million years allowing those things to affect them in the areas they live.

But if we imagine that we already live in a beautiful, “homogenous” country I can see the arguments for strict land usage laws. On the extreme end, let’s imagine we have a charming rural village surrounded by on both sides, and with a narrow view of the sea to the East. The town has a slight incline, meaning that almost every house has the same view out to the ocean. For generations it has been like this, until one day a real estate developer notices a profit opportunity. This consortium buys up all the oceanfront land. They then build a bunch of skyscrapers there that block the view of the beach for everyone else. It also fundamentally changes the nature of the town from a quite, close knit community into a boom and bust holiday destination for random people all over the world.

Similar things have happened.

The libertarian view of this would be that this was their property, so they should do whatever they want. But this is obviously an anti-social and selfish way to look at this, because they have negatively affected everyone else. A much more human way to look at this is that yes, other people should be able to make realistic impositions on you and what you can do with your property. And they should be able to prevent you from being an anti-social little cunt.

But these things must be looked at on a case by case basis. In the above example I would strongly side with the people against the real estate developers. The San Fransiscan faggots who got George Lucas’ film studio extension shut down, which prompted him to build low income housing, strike me as being a bunch of intolerable and entitled Californians.

There is something to be said for not playing music loud enough for your neighbours to hear, there is also something to be said for not throwing a temper tantrum if your neighbours throw a house party once a year where you can vaguely hear the music from inside your own house. These things need to be looked at on a case by case basis. 

Colmar, France. Thankfully with no skyscrapers.

Property usage laws don’t destroy communities, unpopular and undemocratic zoning laws that people don’t want destroy communities. On the contrary, people should feel a collective ownership of their land, from their country to their local community. The most important part of that is keeping others out. But even beyond that, we should collectively decide the rules under which the land is developed, not ultra rich and politically connected real estate developers or bought off politicians. That means imposing limitations on what others can do with their property, as well as who can be let in and who must be left out.

There are plenty of no-brainer land usage regulations that I fully support. I support a ban on pornography, prostitution, and probably strip clubs. But what I think everyone can agree on is that these things should at least be restricted to areas well away from where children could accidentally find themselves, especially at normal times. The same is true for all sorts of pollution, like noise pollution, light pollution, smell pollution, and sound pollution. The earlier example of obnoxious high rise apartments being built lead to some obvious height restrictions in some areas. 

We don’t need to go into all of them. The point is that there are plenty of pro-social land usage restrictions that people would vote for if they didn’t have to do fake democracy and could do real democracy, where they vote on policy directly. We don’t need some antifa and big business supporting city council to have the power to centrally plan enormous swathes of land as purely residential, forcing you to get into a car everywhere.

However, we do need lots of central planning in order to make our cities and towns of the highest quality. Some of these, like waste treatment, water, and electrical power systems are already done, and not controversial. But there is plenty of infrastructure that should be built much more that make these midwits seethe to no end.

Such as pedestrian bridges, seen above. Pedestrian underpasses, seen below.

And multilevel parking garages, the bane of the urbanist. 

These are infrastructure projects that are unambiguously good. They may not always be worth the cost, just like any other project, but they all drastically improve walkability, provided that you have low crime. They can even be used as a tool to solve the “stroad,” problem, which is itself one of the dumbest things these urbanists came up with, albeit with a small grain of truth. But the urbanists hate them, because they’re a bunch of weirdos who hate cars, and whine about this as CaR iNFraStRuCTuRE.

We’ll get there next time.

You may also like

1 Comment

  1. […] PSA: Deboonking the Traffic Soyboys 6 – The non-Soy and non-Capitalist Argument for Land Usage… […]

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in PSA