site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   2972 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 19, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You might be able to make a reductio ad absurdum argument for the most extreme straw-man YIMBY, but the "official" YIMBY position is more like "revise model zoning codes to allow triplexes where duplexes are now allowed".

To be fair, the linked page also includes tenets that go along with the reductio ad absurdum.

  • "Permit backyard cottages (ADUs, accessory dwelling units) in all residential zones." The same organization's The Housing-Ready City document does not clarify, but the International Zoning Code imposes on ADUs a minimum area of 190 ft2 or half of the main house's area, whichever is higher.

  • "Legalize starter homes in all residential zones." The Housing-Ready City clarifies that that means eliminating minimum floor-area requirements, so that houses of 400–800 ft2 can be built. Such requirements are not in the IZC, but I personally have lived in a zone where the minimum area was 1200 ft2.

  • "Eliminate minimum lot-size requirements in existing neighborhoods." The Housing-Ready City does not clarify, but the IZC generally imposes a minimum lot size of 1/6 acre (7260 ft2—e. g., 70 ft × 104 ft), plus setbacks ranging from 5 ft to 20 ft.

So, even with a charitable perspective, this organization can be interpreted as advocating residential zones that are composed of 30 ft × 55 ft (1/26-acre) lots (with 5-ft setbacks on all sides), each containing a 400-ft2 (20 ft × 20 ft) house and a 200-ft2 (14 ft × 14 ft) ADU—and that's without even looking at duplexes and triplexes.

Yeah, I'm not necessarily in favor of any of these things. As an actual property owner IRL, I personally do not want a bunch of shitty development in my back yard. I'm just willing to admit it's down to wanting to protect my own property interests rather than making the argument that it's obviously in the public interest.

You would for sure have to rework the zoning code for those to work.

  • For ADUs, they are currently not allowed in my municipality. If it came down to it I would rather my mother-in-law live in a ADU on my property than put her in a home or live in an attached suit. In that situation my MIL would not put significant additional strain on local traffic, because she would not be commuting to work and would probably share grocery runs. If you allowed rental of ADUs in a car-dependent place on minimal lots I do think that would be bad. Is there a way you could allow the former without the latter, IDK.
  • For starter homes 400 ft2 would still not allow Connestoga huts. I've guess we've already discussed 800 ft2 homes here. I think that could work for utilizing otherwise unbuildable lots if combined with generous setback requirements.
  • The key is eliminate minimum lot-size would be for existing neighborhoods. Again, this would need to be combined with generous setback requirements.

I actually do think the strongtowns people take it too far, but it's a pretty big gap from build 1,000,000 Connestoga huts to allow dense infill where there is latent demand. Might as well the gap to my actual position which is that it should not take 8 years and millions of dollars to get zoning approval to replace a laundromat with medium density mixed use development along an existing transit corridor.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats