Bill to legally rent out pool or home gym

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a terrible idea, but maybe I am in the minority. Smells like a ZTA Trojan horse.

https://moco360.media/2023/02/01/homeowners-could-rent-out-their-pools-gyms-legally-under-jawando-bill/

The Trojan horse here are that these businesses would operate in SFH communities and without parking minimums.

I for one hope that they extend this auto repair shops. People are doing this anyway, so may was well regulate it. Nothing wrong with a little commercial activity out of someone’s home in your community. It’s good actually.

That's not a Trojan horse. That's explicit. It's why there needs to be a zoning text amendment.

And yes, it would affect neighborhoods with single-unit detached houses, because that's where the private pools and private home gyms mostly are. There is nothing sacrosanct about such neighborhoods or the people (including me) who live in them.

Sure. But infrastructure in those neighborhoods are not designed to accommodate a lot of cars. The traffic safety risks are obvious from people zooming in and out of neighborhoods to go and workout. Because there is no capacity limitation, you can have a whole commercial gym at your house like a Planet Fitness. The developer who built Planet Fitness has to pay transportation impact fees to ensure that the increased infrastructure demands are accommodated. Not here. It’s wildly dangerous and pretty stupid as a matter of policy.

As PP says, it’s also a good question why it’s restricted to pools and gyms as the only acceptable commercial businesses.

Because it's one ZTA. Are there other home-based businesses you would like to allow, in addition to pools and gyms? I can think of many.

As for wildly dangerous - I don't know why people going to a pool or a workout room would be zooming in and out of neighborhoods any more than your neighbors are already zooming in and out to go to a pool or gym elsewhere. Or for any other reason they're driving in and out.

Every car going down a residential street where kids live and play is a risk. Maybe you don’t agree, but keeping kids safe is an important role of public policy. Intentionally increasing risk to kids for something so inessential is pretty stupid, which makes sense as to why this is coming from Jawando.

Last time I checked a residential street is constructed and maintained as a public access way, not a playground. That’s what yards and actual playgrounds are for.

No, streets should be for everyone, including for kids playing. Except kids don't do that anymore, these days, because it's too dangerous, and not because of home-based businesses.

Streets are not taxpayer-subsidized playgrounds.

If you want your kids playing on pavement then get yourself a long driveway.

They actually are. Or, more accurately, streets are supposed to be safe for kids who are walking places and biking places (including school) while being kids. Safety for everyone, including kids, should be more important than you going places as fast as possible in a car. However, that actually shows the threadbareness of the other PP saying that we can't allow people to legally rent out their home gyms or home pools because it would endanger children when people arrive to use those home gyms or home pools in a car.

That other PP also keeps talking about "narrow residential streets", and actually narrow residential streets are safer. People generally drive more slowly on the narrow streets that have parked cars on both sides and basically just one lane down the middle and most houses don't even have a driveway let alone a garage, than they do on the wide streets with no parked cars and no sidewalks and no curbs and every house has a driveway and a garage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a terrible idea, but maybe I am in the minority. Smells like a ZTA Trojan horse.

https://moco360.media/2023/02/01/homeowners-could-rent-out-their-pools-gyms-legally-under-jawando-bill/

The Trojan horse here are that these businesses would operate in SFH communities and without parking minimums.

I for one hope that they extend this auto repair shops. People are doing this anyway, so may was well regulate it. Nothing wrong with a little commercial activity out of someone’s home in your community. It’s good actually.

That's not a Trojan horse. That's explicit. It's why there needs to be a zoning text amendment.

And yes, it would affect neighborhoods with single-unit detached houses, because that's where the private pools and private home gyms mostly are. There is nothing sacrosanct about such neighborhoods or the people (including me) who live in them.

Sure. But infrastructure in those neighborhoods are not designed to accommodate a lot of cars. The traffic safety risks are obvious from people zooming in and out of neighborhoods to go and workout. Because there is no capacity limitation, you can have a whole commercial gym at your house like a Planet Fitness. The developer who built Planet Fitness has to pay transportation impact fees to ensure that the increased infrastructure demands are accommodated. Not here. It’s wildly dangerous and pretty stupid as a matter of policy.

As PP says, it’s also a good question why it’s restricted to pools and gyms as the only acceptable commercial businesses.

Because it's one ZTA. Are there other home-based businesses you would like to allow, in addition to pools and gyms? I can think of many.

As for wildly dangerous - I don't know why people going to a pool or a workout room would be zooming in and out of neighborhoods any more than your neighbors are already zooming in and out to go to a pool or gym elsewhere. Or for any other reason they're driving in and out.

Every car going down a residential street where kids live and play is a risk. Maybe you don’t agree, but keeping kids safe is an important role of public policy. Intentionally increasing risk to kids for something so inessential is pretty stupid, which makes sense as to why this is coming from Jawando.

Your stated reason is classic "won't somebody think of the children". Most of the cars are your neighbors' cars. The threat to the kids isn't from some random person who wants to pay to use someone else's pool; it's from your neighbors. It's weird how often some people oppose ideas like this by saying they endanger children, but then also oppose ideas that would make children safer, like sidewalks on their streets, or limits on parking near intersections, or speed bumps.

Actually yes, let’s think about the kids. There are different permitting rules for residential and commercial swimming pools for a reason and that’s to save kids lives. The idea that you would build a residential pool under residential rules and then convert it into a commercial pool could literally cost kids their lives.

This “plan” is some real Republican deregulation loophole b.s. that can actually kill people.

So your neighbor's pool can kill children, but only if they are children who paid to be there?

You don’t understand why there are different permitting rules for commercial and non-commercial properties?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a terrible idea, but maybe I am in the minority. Smells like a ZTA Trojan horse.

https://moco360.media/2023/02/01/homeowners-could-rent-out-their-pools-gyms-legally-under-jawando-bill/

The Trojan horse here are that these businesses would operate in SFH communities and without parking minimums.

I for one hope that they extend this auto repair shops. People are doing this anyway, so may was well regulate it. Nothing wrong with a little commercial activity out of someone’s home in your community. It’s good actually.

That's not a Trojan horse. That's explicit. It's why there needs to be a zoning text amendment.

And yes, it would affect neighborhoods with single-unit detached houses, because that's where the private pools and private home gyms mostly are. There is nothing sacrosanct about such neighborhoods or the people (including me) who live in them.

Sure. But infrastructure in those neighborhoods are not designed to accommodate a lot of cars. The traffic safety risks are obvious from people zooming in and out of neighborhoods to go and workout. Because there is no capacity limitation, you can have a whole commercial gym at your house like a Planet Fitness. The developer who built Planet Fitness has to pay transportation impact fees to ensure that the increased infrastructure demands are accommodated. Not here. It’s wildly dangerous and pretty stupid as a matter of policy.

As PP says, it’s also a good question why it’s restricted to pools and gyms as the only acceptable commercial businesses.

Because it's one ZTA. Are there other home-based businesses you would like to allow, in addition to pools and gyms? I can think of many.

As for wildly dangerous - I don't know why people going to a pool or a workout room would be zooming in and out of neighborhoods any more than your neighbors are already zooming in and out to go to a pool or gym elsewhere. Or for any other reason they're driving in and out.

Every car going down a residential street where kids live and play is a risk. Maybe you don’t agree, but keeping kids safe is an important role of public policy. Intentionally increasing risk to kids for something so inessential is pretty stupid, which makes sense as to why this is coming from Jawando.

Your stated reason is classic "won't somebody think of the children". Most of the cars are your neighbors' cars. The threat to the kids isn't from some random person who wants to pay to use someone else's pool; it's from your neighbors. It's weird how often some people oppose ideas like this by saying they endanger children, but then also oppose ideas that would make children safer, like sidewalks on their streets, or limits on parking near intersections, or speed bumps.

Actually yes, let’s think about the kids. There are different permitting rules for residential and commercial swimming pools for a reason and that’s to save kids lives. The idea that you would build a residential pool under residential rules and then convert it into a commercial pool could literally cost kids their lives.

This “plan” is some real Republican deregulation loophole b.s. that can actually kill people.

So your neighbor's pool can kill children, but only if they are children who paid to be there?

You don’t understand why there are different permitting rules for commercial and non-commercial properties?

Please explain why a pool that's safe if the owner lets people use it for free is unsafe if the owner makes people to pay to use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a terrible idea, but maybe I am in the minority. Smells like a ZTA Trojan horse.

https://moco360.media/2023/02/01/homeowners-could-rent-out-their-pools-gyms-legally-under-jawando-bill/

The Trojan horse here are that these businesses would operate in SFH communities and without parking minimums.

I for one hope that they extend this auto repair shops. People are doing this anyway, so may was well regulate it. Nothing wrong with a little commercial activity out of someone’s home in your community. It’s good actually.

That's not a Trojan horse. That's explicit. It's why there needs to be a zoning text amendment.

And yes, it would affect neighborhoods with single-unit detached houses, because that's where the private pools and private home gyms mostly are. There is nothing sacrosanct about such neighborhoods or the people (including me) who live in them.

Sure. But infrastructure in those neighborhoods are not designed to accommodate a lot of cars. The traffic safety risks are obvious from people zooming in and out of neighborhoods to go and workout. Because there is no capacity limitation, you can have a whole commercial gym at your house like a Planet Fitness. The developer who built Planet Fitness has to pay transportation impact fees to ensure that the increased infrastructure demands are accommodated. Not here. It’s wildly dangerous and pretty stupid as a matter of policy.

As PP says, it’s also a good question why it’s restricted to pools and gyms as the only acceptable commercial businesses.

Because it's one ZTA. Are there other home-based businesses you would like to allow, in addition to pools and gyms? I can think of many.

As for wildly dangerous - I don't know why people going to a pool or a workout room would be zooming in and out of neighborhoods any more than your neighbors are already zooming in and out to go to a pool or gym elsewhere. Or for any other reason they're driving in and out.

Every car going down a residential street where kids live and play is a risk. Maybe you don’t agree, but keeping kids safe is an important role of public policy. Intentionally increasing risk to kids for something so inessential is pretty stupid, which makes sense as to why this is coming from Jawando.

Your stated reason is classic "won't somebody think of the children". Most of the cars are your neighbors' cars. The threat to the kids isn't from some random person who wants to pay to use someone else's pool; it's from your neighbors. It's weird how often some people oppose ideas like this by saying they endanger children, but then also oppose ideas that would make children safer, like sidewalks on their streets, or limits on parking near intersections, or speed bumps.

Actually yes, let’s think about the kids. There are different permitting rules for residential and commercial swimming pools for a reason and that’s to save kids lives. The idea that you would build a residential pool under residential rules and then convert it into a commercial pool could literally cost kids their lives.

This “plan” is some real Republican deregulation loophole b.s. that can actually kill people.

So your neighbor's pool can kill children, but only if they are children who paid to be there?

You don’t understand why there are different permitting rules for commercial and non-commercial properties?

Please explain why a pool that's safe if the owner lets people use it for free is unsafe if the owner makes people to pay to use it.

Why are rules for home kitchens to be permitted as safe different than commercial kitchens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a terrible idea, but maybe I am in the minority. Smells like a ZTA Trojan horse.

https://moco360.media/2023/02/01/homeowners-could-rent-out-their-pools-gyms-legally-under-jawando-bill/

The Trojan horse here are that these businesses would operate in SFH communities and without parking minimums.

I for one hope that they extend this auto repair shops. People are doing this anyway, so may was well regulate it. Nothing wrong with a little commercial activity out of someone’s home in your community. It’s good actually.

That's not a Trojan horse. That's explicit. It's why there needs to be a zoning text amendment.

And yes, it would affect neighborhoods with single-unit detached houses, because that's where the private pools and private home gyms mostly are. There is nothing sacrosanct about such neighborhoods or the people (including me) who live in them.

Sure. But infrastructure in those neighborhoods are not designed to accommodate a lot of cars. The traffic safety risks are obvious from people zooming in and out of neighborhoods to go and workout. Because there is no capacity limitation, you can have a whole commercial gym at your house like a Planet Fitness. The developer who built Planet Fitness has to pay transportation impact fees to ensure that the increased infrastructure demands are accommodated. Not here. It’s wildly dangerous and pretty stupid as a matter of policy.

As PP says, it’s also a good question why it’s restricted to pools and gyms as the only acceptable commercial businesses.

Because it's one ZTA. Are there other home-based businesses you would like to allow, in addition to pools and gyms? I can think of many.

As for wildly dangerous - I don't know why people going to a pool or a workout room would be zooming in and out of neighborhoods any more than your neighbors are already zooming in and out to go to a pool or gym elsewhere. Or for any other reason they're driving in and out.

Every car going down a residential street where kids live and play is a risk. Maybe you don’t agree, but keeping kids safe is an important role of public policy. Intentionally increasing risk to kids for something so inessential is pretty stupid, which makes sense as to why this is coming from Jawando.

Your stated reason is classic "won't somebody think of the children". Most of the cars are your neighbors' cars. The threat to the kids isn't from some random person who wants to pay to use someone else's pool; it's from your neighbors. It's weird how often some people oppose ideas like this by saying they endanger children, but then also oppose ideas that would make children safer, like sidewalks on their streets, or limits on parking near intersections, or speed bumps.

Actually yes, let’s think about the kids. There are different permitting rules for residential and commercial swimming pools for a reason and that’s to save kids lives. The idea that you would build a residential pool under residential rules and then convert it into a commercial pool could literally cost kids their lives.

This “plan” is some real Republican deregulation loophole b.s. that can actually kill people.

So your neighbor's pool can kill children, but only if they are children who paid to be there?

You don’t understand why there are different permitting rules for commercial and non-commercial properties?

Please explain why a pool that's safe if the owner lets people use it for free is unsafe if the owner makes people to pay to use it.

Why are rules for home kitchens to be permitted as safe different than commercial kitchens?

Why are the fire and electrical codes different for commercial and single family residential buildings? Does the county want people to die at home but not in the office. So many mysteries.

[Anonymous]

I still want to know who these people are who would rent out their home gym, and who these people are who’d pay to use someone’s home gym instead of joining a regular gym or going to a county rec center for free.

At least the pool part of it makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still want to know who these people are who would rent out their home gym, and who these people are who’d pay to use someone’s home gym instead of joining a regular gym or going to a county rec center for free.

At least the pool part of it makes sense.

The gym thing is not a “rent out” scenario. It’s turning your home into a gym where people come and workout. The best case scenario is personal training. But you can imagine basically a purpose built structure to residential code that was a smaller scale Golds, Soul Cycle or Yoga Studio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still want to know who these people are who would rent out their home gym, and who these people are who’d pay to use someone’s home gym instead of joining a regular gym or going to a county rec center for free.

At least the pool part of it makes sense.

The gym thing is not a “rent out” scenario. It’s turning your home into a gym where people come and workout. The best case scenario is personal training. But you can imagine basically a purpose built structure to residential code that was a smaller scale Golds, Soul Cycle or Yoga Studio.

Maybe you can, but I can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a terrible idea, but maybe I am in the minority. Smells like a ZTA Trojan horse.

https://moco360.media/2023/02/01/homeowners-could-rent-out-their-pools-gyms-legally-under-jawando-bill/

The Trojan horse here are that these businesses would operate in SFH communities and without parking minimums.

I for one hope that they extend this auto repair shops. People are doing this anyway, so may was well regulate it. Nothing wrong with a little commercial activity out of someone’s home in your community. It’s good actually.

That's not a Trojan horse. That's explicit. It's why there needs to be a zoning text amendment.

And yes, it would affect neighborhoods with single-unit detached houses, because that's where the private pools and private home gyms mostly are. There is nothing sacrosanct about such neighborhoods or the people (including me) who live in them.

Sure. But infrastructure in those neighborhoods are not designed to accommodate a lot of cars. The traffic safety risks are obvious from people zooming in and out of neighborhoods to go and workout. Because there is no capacity limitation, you can have a whole commercial gym at your house like a Planet Fitness. The developer who built Planet Fitness has to pay transportation impact fees to ensure that the increased infrastructure demands are accommodated. Not here. It’s wildly dangerous and pretty stupid as a matter of policy.

As PP says, it’s also a good question why it’s restricted to pools and gyms as the only acceptable commercial businesses.

Because it's one ZTA. Are there other home-based businesses you would like to allow, in addition to pools and gyms? I can think of many.

As for wildly dangerous - I don't know why people going to a pool or a workout room would be zooming in and out of neighborhoods any more than your neighbors are already zooming in and out to go to a pool or gym elsewhere. Or for any other reason they're driving in and out.

Every car going down a residential street where kids live and play is a risk. Maybe you don’t agree, but keeping kids safe is an important role of public policy. Intentionally increasing risk to kids for something so inessential is pretty stupid, which makes sense as to why this is coming from Jawando.

Your stated reason is classic "won't somebody think of the children". Most of the cars are your neighbors' cars. The threat to the kids isn't from some random person who wants to pay to use someone else's pool; it's from your neighbors. It's weird how often some people oppose ideas like this by saying they endanger children, but then also oppose ideas that would make children safer, like sidewalks on their streets, or limits on parking near intersections, or speed bumps.

Actually yes, let’s think about the kids. There are different permitting rules for residential and commercial swimming pools for a reason and that’s to save kids lives. The idea that you would build a residential pool under residential rules and then convert it into a commercial pool could literally cost kids their lives.

This “plan” is some real Republican deregulation loophole b.s. that can actually kill people.

So your neighbor's pool can kill children, but only if they are children who paid to be there?

You don’t understand why there are different permitting rules for commercial and non-commercial properties?

Please explain why a pool that's safe if the owner lets people use it for free is unsafe if the owner makes people to pay to use it.

Why are rules for home kitchens to be permitted as safe different than commercial kitchens?

Those are different kitchens. This would be the same pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still want to know who these people are who would rent out their home gym, and who these people are who’d pay to use someone’s home gym instead of joining a regular gym or going to a county rec center for free.

At least the pool part of it makes sense.

The gym thing is not a “rent out” scenario. It’s turning your home into a gym where people come and workout. The best case scenario is personal training. But you can imagine basically a purpose built structure to residential code that was a smaller scale Golds, Soul Cycle or Yoga Studio.

I'm thinking the selling point is that the home gym is close by. Easier to access/no travel time.

Still wouldn't ever go to one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a terrible idea, but maybe I am in the minority. Smells like a ZTA Trojan horse.

https://moco360.media/2023/02/01/homeowners-could-rent-out-their-pools-gyms-legally-under-jawando-bill/

The Trojan horse here are that these businesses would operate in SFH communities and without parking minimums.

I for one hope that they extend this auto repair shops. People are doing this anyway, so may was well regulate it. Nothing wrong with a little commercial activity out of someone’s home in your community. It’s good actually.

That's not a Trojan horse. That's explicit. It's why there needs to be a zoning text amendment.

And yes, it would affect neighborhoods with single-unit detached houses, because that's where the private pools and private home gyms mostly are. There is nothing sacrosanct about such neighborhoods or the people (including me) who live in them.

Sure. But infrastructure in those neighborhoods are not designed to accommodate a lot of cars. The traffic safety risks are obvious from people zooming in and out of neighborhoods to go and workout. Because there is no capacity limitation, you can have a whole commercial gym at your house like a Planet Fitness. The developer who built Planet Fitness has to pay transportation impact fees to ensure that the increased infrastructure demands are accommodated. Not here. It’s wildly dangerous and pretty stupid as a matter of policy.

As PP says, it’s also a good question why it’s restricted to pools and gyms as the only acceptable commercial businesses.

Because it's one ZTA. Are there other home-based businesses you would like to allow, in addition to pools and gyms? I can think of many.

As for wildly dangerous - I don't know why people going to a pool or a workout room would be zooming in and out of neighborhoods any more than your neighbors are already zooming in and out to go to a pool or gym elsewhere. Or for any other reason they're driving in and out.

Every car going down a residential street where kids live and play is a risk. Maybe you don’t agree, but keeping kids safe is an important role of public policy. Intentionally increasing risk to kids for something so inessential is pretty stupid, which makes sense as to why this is coming from Jawando.

Your stated reason is classic "won't somebody think of the children". Most of the cars are your neighbors' cars. The threat to the kids isn't from some random person who wants to pay to use someone else's pool; it's from your neighbors. It's weird how often some people oppose ideas like this by saying they endanger children, but then also oppose ideas that would make children safer, like sidewalks on their streets, or limits on parking near intersections, or speed bumps.

Actually yes, let’s think about the kids. There are different permitting rules for residential and commercial swimming pools for a reason and that’s to save kids lives. The idea that you would build a residential pool under residential rules and then convert it into a commercial pool could literally cost kids their lives.

This “plan” is some real Republican deregulation loophole b.s. that can actually kill people.

So your neighbor's pool can kill children, but only if they are children who paid to be there?

You don’t understand why there are different permitting rules for commercial and non-commercial properties?

Please explain why a pool that's safe if the owner lets people use it for free is unsafe if the owner makes people to pay to use it.

Why are rules for home kitchens to be permitted as safe different than commercial kitchens?

Those are different kitchens. This would be the same pool.

You are not aware that there are specific and different rules for public/commercial pools than a pool you would build at your house. The main difference is access for emergency vehicles. They are built to different standards because they have different uses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a terrible idea, but maybe I am in the minority. Smells like a ZTA Trojan horse.

https://moco360.media/2023/02/01/homeowners-could-rent-out-their-pools-gyms-legally-under-jawando-bill/

The Trojan horse here are that these businesses would operate in SFH communities and without parking minimums.

I for one hope that they extend this auto repair shops. People are doing this anyway, so may was well regulate it. Nothing wrong with a little commercial activity out of someone’s home in your community. It’s good actually.

That's not a Trojan horse. That's explicit. It's why there needs to be a zoning text amendment.

And yes, it would affect neighborhoods with single-unit detached houses, because that's where the private pools and private home gyms mostly are. There is nothing sacrosanct about such neighborhoods or the people (including me) who live in them.

Sure. But infrastructure in those neighborhoods are not designed to accommodate a lot of cars. The traffic safety risks are obvious from people zooming in and out of neighborhoods to go and workout. Because there is no capacity limitation, you can have a whole commercial gym at your house like a Planet Fitness. The developer who built Planet Fitness has to pay transportation impact fees to ensure that the increased infrastructure demands are accommodated. Not here. It’s wildly dangerous and pretty stupid as a matter of policy.

As PP says, it’s also a good question why it’s restricted to pools and gyms as the only acceptable commercial businesses.

Because it's one ZTA. Are there other home-based businesses you would like to allow, in addition to pools and gyms? I can think of many.

As for wildly dangerous - I don't know why people going to a pool or a workout room would be zooming in and out of neighborhoods any more than your neighbors are already zooming in and out to go to a pool or gym elsewhere. Or for any other reason they're driving in and out.

What about home-based daycares? There are 8 to 12 sets of parents coming and going every day. They are already state licensed, but will they need to be county licensed?

Home based hair, salons, or any other businesses also need to be regulated by the county on top of the state or am I misunderstanding this zoning regulation, and what it could mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a terrible idea, but maybe I am in the minority. Smells like a ZTA Trojan horse.

https://moco360.media/2023/02/01/homeowners-could-rent-out-their-pools-gyms-legally-under-jawando-bill/

The Trojan horse here are that these businesses would operate in SFH communities and without parking minimums.

I for one hope that they extend this auto repair shops. People are doing this anyway, so may was well regulate it. Nothing wrong with a little commercial activity out of someone’s home in your community. It’s good actually.

That's not a Trojan horse. That's explicit. It's why there needs to be a zoning text amendment.

And yes, it would affect neighborhoods with single-unit detached houses, because that's where the private pools and private home gyms mostly are. There is nothing sacrosanct about such neighborhoods or the people (including me) who live in them.

Sure. But infrastructure in those neighborhoods are not designed to accommodate a lot of cars. The traffic safety risks are obvious from people zooming in and out of neighborhoods to go and workout. Because there is no capacity limitation, you can have a whole commercial gym at your house like a Planet Fitness. The developer who built Planet Fitness has to pay transportation impact fees to ensure that the increased infrastructure demands are accommodated. Not here. It’s wildly dangerous and pretty stupid as a matter of policy.

As PP says, it’s also a good question why it’s restricted to pools and gyms as the only acceptable commercial businesses.

Because it's one ZTA. Are there other home-based businesses you would like to allow, in addition to pools and gyms? I can think of many.

As for wildly dangerous - I don't know why people going to a pool or a workout room would be zooming in and out of neighborhoods any more than your neighbors are already zooming in and out to go to a pool or gym elsewhere. Or for any other reason they're driving in and out.

What about home-based daycares? There are 8 to 12 sets of parents coming and going every day. They are already state licensed, but will they need to be county licensed?

Home based hair, salons, or any other businesses also need to be regulated by the county on top of the state or am I misunderstanding this zoning regulation, and what it could mean?

Based on the article, this would be a ZTA that is only about pools and workout rooms, not about everything you might possibly do as a business in your home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a terrible idea, but maybe I am in the minority. Smells like a ZTA Trojan horse.

https://moco360.media/2023/02/01/homeowners-could-rent-out-their-pools-gyms-legally-under-jawando-bill/

The Trojan horse here are that these businesses would operate in SFH communities and without parking minimums.

I for one hope that they extend this auto repair shops. People are doing this anyway, so may was well regulate it. Nothing wrong with a little commercial activity out of someone’s home in your community. It’s good actually.

That's not a Trojan horse. That's explicit. It's why there needs to be a zoning text amendment.

And yes, it would affect neighborhoods with single-unit detached houses, because that's where the private pools and private home gyms mostly are. There is nothing sacrosanct about such neighborhoods or the people (including me) who live in them.

Sure. But infrastructure in those neighborhoods are not designed to accommodate a lot of cars. The traffic safety risks are obvious from people zooming in and out of neighborhoods to go and workout. Because there is no capacity limitation, you can have a whole commercial gym at your house like a Planet Fitness. The developer who built Planet Fitness has to pay transportation impact fees to ensure that the increased infrastructure demands are accommodated. Not here. It’s wildly dangerous and pretty stupid as a matter of policy.

As PP says, it’s also a good question why it’s restricted to pools and gyms as the only acceptable commercial businesses.

Because it's one ZTA. Are there other home-based businesses you would like to allow, in addition to pools and gyms? I can think of many.

As for wildly dangerous - I don't know why people going to a pool or a workout room would be zooming in and out of neighborhoods any more than your neighbors are already zooming in and out to go to a pool or gym elsewhere. Or for any other reason they're driving in and out.

Every car going down a residential street where kids live and play is a risk. Maybe you don’t agree, but keeping kids safe is an important role of public policy. Intentionally increasing risk to kids for something so inessential is pretty stupid, which makes sense as to why this is coming from Jawando.

Your stated reason is classic "won't somebody think of the children". Most of the cars are your neighbors' cars. The threat to the kids isn't from some random person who wants to pay to use someone else's pool; it's from your neighbors. It's weird how often some people oppose ideas like this by saying they endanger children, but then also oppose ideas that would make children safer, like sidewalks on their streets, or limits on parking near intersections, or speed bumps.

Actually yes, let’s think about the kids. There are different permitting rules for residential and commercial swimming pools for a reason and that’s to save kids lives. The idea that you would build a residential pool under residential rules and then convert it into a commercial pool could literally cost kids their lives.

This “plan” is some real Republican deregulation loophole b.s. that can actually kill people.

So your neighbor's pool can kill children, but only if they are children who paid to be there?

You don’t understand why there are different permitting rules for commercial and non-commercial properties?

Please explain why a pool that's safe if the owner lets people use it for free is unsafe if the owner makes people to pay to use it.

Why are rules for home kitchens to be permitted as safe different than commercial kitchens?

Those are different kitchens. This would be the same pool.

You are not aware that there are specific and different rules for public/commercial pools than a pool you would build at your house. The main difference is access for emergency vehicles. They are built to different standards because they have different uses.

This is circular logic: commercial pools have different rules from home pools because they are commercial pools instead of home pools. The point of the ZTA would be to allow a homeowner to rent out their home pool. Maybe you would want home pools to have the same requirements as commercial pools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still want to know who these people are who would rent out their home gym, and who these people are who’d pay to use someone’s home gym instead of joining a regular gym or going to a county rec center for free.

At least the pool part of it makes sense.

The gym thing is not a “rent out” scenario. It’s turning your home into a gym where people come and workout. The best case scenario is personal training. But you can imagine basically a purpose built structure to residential code that was a smaller scale Golds, Soul Cycle or Yoga Studio.

I'm thinking the selling point is that the home gym is close by. Easier to access/no travel time.

Still wouldn't ever go to one.

I wouldn't either, but I don't expect everything to be for me. The good news is, if there isn't anyone who would go to one, then the PP doesn't have to worry about thousands of vehicles endangering children playing in narrow residential streets, except oh wait, that's actually already happening right now.