Zoning Laws

At some level zoning laws make sense.  There are good reasons for me not to be allowed to pave my entire property on a whim, and there are good reasons that I can't just decide to run a bar out of my basement, and there are good reasons that I cannot build a 30' wall on my property line.  That said, a lot of zoning is parochial nonsense.

Setbacks are my current gripe (for personal reasons, and because of this mention by Atrios).  Between being able to maintain your property, not invading on a neighbor's or public space and not being a fire hazard a few feet of setback, in some cases, makes good sense.  10 - 30' (depending on zoning and structure) almost never does.

The only thing a 10' setback does is break up your property into smaller and less usable pieces.  It is particularly galling to have such in a neighborhood where lots of earlier built structures are right on the property line.

That's Not Reflective of Bad Management

I guess it's read Matt Yglesias evening.  This post of his is mostly throw-away, but there is something very perplexing in it.  He says:

But laws like this that give local capital an advantage versus remote capital are probably bad for wage earners. What you're essentially doing is creating a protected class of capitalists who are immunized against being put out of business by a more effective owner and manager. That has negative consequences for customers but also for workers—you're essentially stuck working for a less-competent boss in a lower-productivity role than you would be in a more competitive market.

The problem is that that doesn't follow.  It's not every one, but one of the defining aspects of chain establishments is that they treat workers like crap.  Pay minimum wage, grant few benefits, cut back hours...

And that makes good sense.  "Good" managment/ownership is most often perceived as minimizing costs, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to spend as little as possible on workers.  Chain restaurants, whether of a fast food variety or not, get over untrained, low motivation workers by making it so that anyone can do the job.  Some "less-competent" boss may have to hire someone who knows what they are doing to get the same results, and that person will likely be paid more because they have some necessary skill (even if it is just operating a meat slicer, or working a grill).

Well, yea, but...

I am far more libertarian when it comes to zoning laws than most people, so I too think that adding an in-law suite to a house should be perfectly fine, though I do understand why it mostly isn't.  That said, if you want to have them you can't say this:

Cherry Hill ordinances lump "mother-in-law suites" with auto-salvage businesses, junkyards, and heliports as impermissible in residential areas. The township wants to prevent single-family homes from conversion into duplexes or rental apartments, which makes sense. [emphasis added]

Um, no, it doesn't make sense. A house with an in-law suite is a duplex/house with apartment.  If one family owns a house, adds an in-law suite and then sells that house, the new owners can easily rent out the in-law suite as an apartment.  You cannot both want to have in-law suites and not have apartments.  The closest you can come is to limit them somehow (no more than 1 suite, and the size of the suite must account for less than 40% of the total square footage of livable space). 

Also, what about someone who wants to add an in-law suite for down the road, and is hoping that a few years of renters could help to offset the cost before mom/dad move in?

Particularly in more dense areas (cities and close in suburbs) adding an apartment/flat/in-law suite is an excellent idea, but even if it is only serving as the in-law suite for the original owner, it must be available as an apartment for that value to be realized.