ablarc, so many dramatics!
as for planning educations, the portion of curricula dedicated to land use planning is very small. in fact it is only a portion of one of many spetializations (which usually include transportation, community development, city design and development, international development). i am unaware of the brainwashing device you speak of. remember, zoning is a legal tool that planners are burdened with. if you want zoning to change, please see the courts. that said, it is a very adaptable legal device. however, the demand you speak of (is your evidence your clients? and if in a traditional suburban subdivision, are they asking for stores in their garages or a large accessory structure? just wondering) does not measure up to the demand for greater controls. in CA, on top of zoning, there is the coastal zone, CEQA, and usually design regulations (which in my opinion are all so broad in scope that they make zoning redundant). even the large call for infill has been delivered in the form of additional controls, or 'positive zoning' - this is simply what most people and courts are comfortable with. on another note, you may want to look into the contemporary "property rights movement" (zoning was and is of course also a 'property rights movement') - please see prop 37 in oregon, passed 2005 maybe, which requires local governments to compensate landowners for ANY of their property value is lowered by regulation. i don't think it's been invalidated yet, but maybe it has. it does throw takings doctrine, well a lot of zoning really, out the door. harkens back to the original conversation over using the police power or eminent domain to control land use. I think that may be the sort of radical change you're looking for, and it is coming while Florida is still quite dry.
as for planning educations, the portion of curricula dedicated to land use planning is very small. in fact it is only a portion of one of many spetializations (which usually include transportation, community development, city design and development, international development). i am unaware of the brainwashing device you speak of. remember, zoning is a legal tool that planners are burdened with. if you want zoning to change, please see the courts. that said, it is a very adaptable legal device. however, the demand you speak of (is your evidence your clients? and if in a traditional suburban subdivision, are they asking for stores in their garages or a large accessory structure? just wondering) does not measure up to the demand for greater controls. in CA, on top of zoning, there is the coastal zone, CEQA, and usually design regulations (which in my opinion are all so broad in scope that they make zoning redundant). even the large call for infill has been delivered in the form of additional controls, or 'positive zoning' - this is simply what most people and courts are comfortable with. on another note, you may want to look into the contemporary "property rights movement" (zoning was and is of course also a 'property rights movement') - please see prop 37 in oregon, passed 2005 maybe, which requires local governments to compensate landowners for ANY of their property value is lowered by regulation. i don't think it's been invalidated yet, but maybe it has. it does throw takings doctrine, well a lot of zoning really, out the door. harkens back to the original conversation over using the police power or eminent domain to control land use. I think that may be the sort of radical change you're looking for, and it is coming while Florida is still quite dry.
Last edited: