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:

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?

“This is circular logic” says person who proceeds to make a circular argument. Try again.

[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.

You make a lot of assumptions about a lot of things to distract from the absurdity of the proposal. If this is okay, there is no reason to have zoning at all. There is no reason to have impact fees. There is no reason to distinguish residential, feeder and arterial roads.

Intentionally putting commercial traffic on a narrow residential street is dangerous and stupid. Full stop.

I don't know how you got from "let modify zoning to allow more uses" to "let's get rid of zoning altogether".

If I'm driving to your neighbor's house, I'm not going to drive any differently depending on the reason for my trip. As though I would be a safe driver if I'm going to their pool party but a dangerous driver if I'm paying them to use their pool for my pool party?

As for commercial traffic on narrow residential streets, you're going to ask the Council to ban Amazon and other delivery drivers, right?

The purpose of zoning is to ensure that there are not incompatible land uses. Having a commercial business with potentially thousands of customers is a land use that is not compatible with narrow residential streets. Maybe a coffee shop. But not a business that will attract large numbers of customers coming in cars. That’s what zoning and planning are supposed to be about. If the idea is that anything goes then there is really no point to zoning at all.

Current planning and zoning methodologies are becoming more incongruous with our economy in which more people are living and working in the same place.

I agree. Let’s be Houston. I’m coming with a strip club next to your house.

You run a strip club out of your home? Gosh.

Any not? Each spouse can entertain those who wish to be entertained. From a performer's perspective, doing at home is likely safer than in a commercial strip club. I certainly could envision private strip parties for bachelor, etc, parties.