in one of his latest responses, j.a. wiest seemed to imply that the only
limitation on the use of private property is the "legal definition of crimes."
however, most building codes, and a great percentage of zoning
ordinances are set up in the interest protection of the public safety and
welfare. for example, code restrictions on the size of side yards in
single family residences are intended to provide firefighters and their
apparatus access to rear yards, and prevent (at least for a period of
time) the spread of flame from dwelling to dwelling across non-rated
walls.
the reason new york city high rises have a "birthday cake" appearance
is to allow light to access the street. certainly, these are well founded
limitations on the use of property, and limitations as to the size and type
of the structure allowed which are set up to benefit public welfare (read:
public interests) which are not based on "crimes."
perhaps some reading on the genesis of zoning in new york city is in
order.
this is exactly why most of the recent development in moscow/pullman is
so terribly disappointing. what is being done on the ridge above moser
(where "i have more money and less taste than you, and i can prove it"
seems to be the operating theme), the apartment "blocks" on the
highways on the south edge of town, and the world-war-two-esque
barracks between morton and "d" street are destroying the fabric and
character that is moscow.
(even the military gave up on the barrack form years ago because it is
counterproductive to morale!)
I would suggest a case study of what happened to pasadena, california
in the late fifties and early sixties to anybody who is interested in what
happens to the character and fabric of a residential neighborhood when
large, box-like, "economics first" development is allowed to spread
unchecked. the results are tragic. (but there is hope, as a study of
pasadena will also illuminate.) think about all the characteristics that are
exhibited in fort russell which make it a positive environment, and then
see if any of them are present in the barracks on morton.
as to the suggestion that social costs aren't relevant, nothing could be
further from the truth. they are extremely relevant, and if not considered
up front, will cost a community exponentially down the road (read: in
taxes). when strictly economic factors are controlling, the human
warehousing which results breeds untold societal problems. you simply
can't construct human warehouses, as we have done here in moscow
in the last few years, and tell people to "get in there and be happy,
creative, productive, useful members of society (damn you)," and not
expect costly social problems to develop.
development may not solve all society's ailments, but it ought not
contribute to them.
development can be open hearted, can be honest, can be more than the
biggest box possible on the smallest lot available, can contribute to the
environment in positive ways, AND be economically feasible. to strive
for less is laziness and is to fail our children.