Talk:Single-family zoning

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 June 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taylork21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What's so v So What: political advocacy v neutral description
Wikipedia is supposed to be factual and objective. My objection, as someone who has worked extensively with all kinds of zoning and who has made binding zoning decisions, is the alleged factual definition of Single Family Zoning is biased, oversimplified and, therefore, effectively factually untrue. I literally included references to actual Single Family Zoning ordinances that exist today to demonstrate some of the bias and was reverted, meaning the censor was more interested in asserting his or her opinion *about* single family zoning than including actual examples of it.

This article misunderstands zoning in general, the differences between "nuisance" zoning, "area-wide" zoning, and so-called "Euclidean" per-parcel zoning, and often conflates it with "convenants" and "deed restrictions". It introduces terminology of "Exclusionary" zoning which is *NOT* a planning term of art, is not well defined, and is often used by political advocates who write about the history of zoning or who seek to "color" zoning with a point of view. *ALL* zoning is implicitly exclusionary by definition, but in fact, *ALL* (Euclidean) zoning designations are legally defined by what they "permit" not what they forbid. Such a "use" a called a "permitted" use. "Permitted use" is a legal planning term of art used to describe what a zoning designation allows. There is NO example of Euclidean zoning that I am aware of that is legally defined by what it excludes. Many zoning designations, mostly commercial or industrial, permit "uses" to the "exclusion" of multi-family housing. SFZ is not uniquely "exclusionary."

Part of the history of SFZ does include its use to effectively segregate by race, but it has a much more robust history than that, including a history of legitimately protected residential uses from industrial encroachment, and in general of segregating use-imcompatible land forms. No-one wants to live near a smelting plant, and no-one wants to put licquer stores or adult book stores near elementary schools. The landmark Supreme Court case the banned facially racist zoning affirmed its use as a tool to protect residential "uses" of all densities against the negative externalities of industrial encroachment.

There is controversy surrounding SFZ and its impacts and those should be covered in sections labelled "Controversies" and "Impacts" not in the section that literally defining single family zoning. And *balanced* informative debate should appear there as well.

This article seems biased against Single-family zoning
Hi, I stumbled across this article whislt reading about the current political debates around single-family zoning (SFZ) in US publications. As a european, I was not aware of this policy, and as such wanted to find out what is was in an objective sense, as opposed to the often politicised descriptions I had found in media outlets of both poltical leanings.

Unfortunately, this page seems extremely biased, taking a clearly anti SFZ stance throughout the discussion. Particularly on the issues of SFZ as a proxy for racial segregation, this article seems to accept this as an objective fact in almost all cases. Though many certainly consider this to be the case, and there is evidence from it in certain situations, I think it would be more appropraite to use langage such as "many beilieve SFZ is a proxy for racial segregation" or "Person X believes... ", as opposed to statements in the article such as: "It is a form of exclusionary zoning,[3][4][5] and was created as a way to keep minorities out of white neighborhood" which rather poisons the well against the policy in the first paragraph of the article!

There are numerous fiuther examples of bias in the article, such as repeatedly using the "NIMBY" epithet to refer to supporters of these zoneing restrictions in the "Recent changes" section. Clearly, such supporters would not label themseleves as such, and by doing so the article shows a clear bias against them.

I notice that some poeple have attemtpted to remove some of the more biased and racially charged statements, but they have always been reverted. Clearly, there are many critics of SFZ and many believe it is a covertly racialist policy, but also many people do not, else there would not be the strong debate that is currently ongoing in many parts of the US on whether to discontinue the policy. As such, shouldn't this article reflect a more balance view of the policy, including more opinions from its supporters and citations from more right of center publications, not just left of center publications like Slate, LA Times, Vox etc. For example, this article from the Washington Examiner offers a more positive view of SFZ and a more negative one of recent attempts to end it.

Apparently, this article was part of a "Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment" this year, and apparently has two main editors. The inputs of more editors not linked to this project might help reduce the article's bias in my view.

2A00:23C6:660C:BA00:C0B1:3DC0:E633:2086 (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, I read this article and was shocked, it was like I had stumbled into a YIMBY website or something. Nothing that is not obviously racist (ie: jim crow laws in the united states) should basically start with "its bad and it was created by big bad racist meanies". Think this is the clearest NPOV violation I have ever seen.

98.36.201.241 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Lacks informational content
Reading this page, I don't get a sense of what Single Family Zoning laws actually are. What does it mean? How and who implements them (federal, state, city government)? What are the technical aspects of SFH zoning and how does it compare to other kinds of zoning? This article seems to only have information on its use in discrimination against minorities, which is an important topic, but shouldn't the article reflect some more technical information as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.240.53 (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Maintaining neutral point of view in the lede
There are a few points regarding NPOV that I sought to remedy with an edit I made yesterday in the lede (without being signed in), which was later reverted by @Avatar317 with the memo "Restored sourced statements".

One is that the lede should specify the time periods and locations that are being discussed in regard to single-family zoning. "Recently" will not have the same meaning in ten years, and "the nation" will not have the same meaning for reader. In my edit I added a tag to the "Recently" portion and changed "the nation" to "the United States" in order to support a NPOV. Reverting this part of my edit has nothing to do with restoring sourced statements.

The issue that seems more contentious is the part of the lede which states that single-family zoning "is a form of exclusionary zoning" and "was created as a way to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods". These unqualified statements are supported by sources name the 1916 zoning code of Berkeley, California as the first example of single-family zoning in the United States. Because of placement of these statements in the lede, whose purpose is to introduce and summarize the following content, I find that its use of Wikivoice to attribute intentions of the creators of Berkeley's zoning code to the creation of single-family zoning in general to be inappropriate, especially when other sources used in the article include other motivations for single-family zoning, and when the argument of Berkeley's zoning code being a model for other single-family zoning codes is weakly or never made in the sources in this article. There is also the section of the lede which states that single-family zoning "both increases the cost of housing units and decreases the supply." Though I do not doubt that this is often true, I also find it inappropriate that this statement is offered without qualification in the lede, especially when the source does not provide much direct information on whether single-family zoning increases costs or decreases supply outside of one example in Washington DC. In fact, that the source for this statement is much more careful about its language supports the idea that this article's lede should similarly refrain from making such unsupported and unqualified statements.

"...zoning rules like building height caps and minimum lot sizes often limit the financial feasibility of developing new housing."

In light of this, I believe my version is better supported by the sources in the lede, and I will restore it.

"As a form of exclusionary zoning, it can have the effect of increasing the cost of housing units and decreasing their supply; single-family zoning can also be used as a way to keep members of minority groups out of white neighborhoods. In many United States cities, 75% of land zoned for residential uses is zoned single-family."

I look forward to discussing questions or issues about this page or my edits in the future. LawClement (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Firstly, NPOV is NOT what you think it is, it is saying what RS's say, and numerous sources support the lead statement about "was created as a way to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods"...just read the sources and see some of the quotes included. Secondly, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, and DOES NOT NEED CITATIONS: WP:LEADCITE, and since the rest of the article supports lead statements, the lead is properly summarizing the article.  (Your other minor edits are ok.) --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d appreciate if you would specifically address the criticisms I made, including the fact that at least one of the sources offers information contradictory to what is included in the lede, and the fact that the sources reference Berkeley’s discriminatory zoning ordinance in particular without explicitly saying that the Berkeley zoning ordinance is a model or the source material for subsequent single-family zoning ordinances which may be similar in effect but distinct in origin — this for me would be an important prerequisite for asserting unqualifiedly in the lede that single family zoning “was created as a way to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods”.
 * I see also that you said that the other minor edits are ok, but you still included them in your most recent revert.
 * Finally, your latest edit message said that I removed sources that I didn’t like. I did not remove any sources, and as I wrote previously, I believe that my version better represents the sources included in the lede and throughout the article. LawClement (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you read the sources more carefully, answers to your questions are there: source 1 (NPR) - read around "Why Was it Created?" Then read the sources (with included quotes) which follow the first sentence in the "History" section:
 * Additionally, you don't get to question whether a Reliable Source WP:RS is properly concluding something or not, that's called Original Research WP:OR and is disallowed here.
 * Multiple sources say that Berkley's SFZ was the first, and was created to keep "a Black dancehall and Chinese laundries, out of white neighborhoods". The article does not say or imply that ALL subsequent implementations were chosen for that reason, it simply talks about the motivation for its creation. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OR is a fair criticism. My intuition is that the lede gives undue weight to the the intent of the Berkeley SFZ ordinance which was "created as a way to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods;" unless some source shows how the Berkeley SFZ ordinance is a model for later ordinances in the US, this more incidental piece of information about the intent of the creators of the first SFZ ordinance belongs in the body (where I've never had a problem with it being) and not with general information lede. Leaving this piece of text in the lede with other generalized introductory information allows too easily the interpretation that any SFZ ordinance around the time of Berkeley's must necessarily have been purpose-made to advance racial segregation, which is a reasonable interpretation and is very likely to be untrue, since having knowledge about people's intentions is rather difficult. We certainly don't have this knowledge within the article yet. As much as I think the writers in Talk:Single-family zoning are misguided (the Washington Examiner is a nakedly partisan source), this seems to be the interpretation they had. So I understand why they found issue with it, since it strays too close to violating WP:NPOV by "stating seriously contested assertions as facts." For me, the bar between seriously contested and fact with regard to people's intentions is high— it is truly hard to correctly determine intentions and people will interpret malice from percieved "lies".
 * The degree to which single-family zoning has been historically and currently used for racial segregation is a more relevant piece of information for inclusion in the lede, and the version which says that SFZ "can also be used as a way to keep members of minority groups out of white neighborhoods" is both more appropriate for the lede in that it does not reference a particular instance of SFZ and in that it provides context (however vague) for the degree to which SFZ is used for racial segregation.
 * For now I will restore the edits you found uncontroversial. And I appreciate that you have refrained from WP:CAPSLOCK. I think we will all be better here if we remember that the person on the other side of the screen is a human too. LawClement (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I've changed "was created as" to "emerged as." This only superficially changes the meaning of the sentence while completely eliminating the issue of intentions present in "was created".LawClement (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for discussing and not edit-warring. "emerged as" is better, thanks!! --- Avatar317 (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)