What is Zoning?

Zoning is a method used by cities to regulate growth. The broadest form of zoning divides up land generally into residential, commercial, and industrial uses.   But usually, cities break down their zoning into details so fine, they can regulate the size of the lots, the height of the building, the density of residents, you name it.


Zoning began in Europe in the 1870s as part of more comprehensive land planning.  The U.S. started to adopt zoning ordinances in the 1920's and by the end of the decade 60% of all cities had such an ordinance.  San Antonio, wishing to stay up with the times, began to think about zoning in 1923.  According to the
San Antonio Remembers Blog on January 18, 1923

Local real estate men are planning to have a city ordinance adopted which will divide the city into definite business, industrial, wholesale and residential districts.

Many times, zoning was used to set aside more desirable property for wealthy residential neighborhoods, if the uses were separated then a wealthy land owner with a large house would never have to worry about a Mom and Pop store being built next door.  Land uses became very segregated.  Funny thing is, zoning was actually used in the south to ensure racial segregation.

The first to pass an ordinance zoning a city into white and black residential areas was Louisville. The Supreme Court struck this one down (Buchanan vs. Warley, 1917) though not for any of the reasons that would seem obvious to us today. The justices found the ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment, by depriving sellers of property of the right to select their buyers.

This is somewhat ironic because the Fourteenth Amendment was one of the amendments put into the Constitution after the civil war to end slavery.

In San Antonio it was done more subtly by zoning less desirable land (near industrial uses or unattractive property) on the east side and west side for higher density (apartments or single family houses on very small lots) and for very low density on the north side (think Alamo Heights.)  This not only segregates people by race but also by class, and is still practiced to some degree today.

Many traditional African American neighborhoods throughout the south suffer from high pollution levels due to zoning.  In the 1920s zoning was considered scientific.

Washington got its zoning plan past the courts in the 1920's with the help of a local doctor who testified that flies from grocery stores might bring disease to children, and therefore by no means must shops be allowed to locate near homes.

So the children of upper class families were normally protected from dangerous uses, while lower class families had to settle for what they could afford.

In my next post I'm going to talk about how zoning changed the ways people conducted business in cities.

Smoking Ban, Racist?

Is the Smoking ban proposed by the San Antonio city council racist?  Well, let's take a look at the facts.

According to the Surgeon General's report on health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke

it increases the risk of serious respiratory problems in children, such as a greater number and severity of asthma attacks and lower respiratory tract infections, and increases the risk for middle ear infections.

Inhaling secondhand smoke [also] causes lung cancer and coronary heart disease in nonsmoking adults.

According to the National Institutes of Health

Levels of environmental tobacco smoke in bars were found to be approximately 3.9 to 6.1 times higher than in office workplaces and 4.4 to 4.5 times higher than in residences. (Siegel 1993)

So if you work in a bar and you don't smoke, you might as well start because you are in just about as much danger of contracting cancer as a smoker.

But hold on a minute, the Restaurant and bar industry studies say the economic impact  to their establishments would be devastating and cause huge economic losses because smokers would go to bars in other jurisdictions. Now we have to take these studies with a grain of salt because some of them are sponsored by the Tobacco industry, which would definetly suffer economic damage from smoking bans.

But there have been numerous independent studies showing that smoking bans actually have a positive economic impact on bars and restaurants. A government study done in New South Wales, Australia found that

weekly pub attendance rose from 21 per cent of New South Wales adults to 26 per cent since the new regulations were introduced.

According to a review of several studies done by Michael Eriksen ScD at the Institute of Public Health at the University of Georgia and Frank Chaloupka PhD at the Health Policy Center at the University of Illinois Chicago

numerous studies using objective measures of economic activity have been done over the past 10+ years looking at the impact of local, state, or national smoke-free policies on restaurants, bars, and tourism. From small towns such as West Lake Hills, Texas, to large cities like New York, in states as diverse as Arkansas, Oregon, and Texas, the vast majority of studies find that there is no negative economic impact of clean indoor air policies, with many finding that there may be some positive effects on local businesses.

Some studies have even found that smoking bans lower the incidence of teen smoking. According to a study done by Michael Siegel at Boston University

Bans don't make teenagers less likely to try cigarettes, but seem to stop them making it a habit, perhaps due to less contact with smokers or because smoking seems less socially acceptable.

But smokers still feel discrimination.  Acording to a Gallup poll conducted in July 2007

The proportion of smokers who feel unjustly discriminated against because of restrictions on smoking in public places is significantly higher today than six years ago. Over the same period, Gallup has seen an increase in public demand for restrictions on smoking in certain public locales, especially workplaces where a majority of Americans now support a full ban.

In San Antonio local advertising executive and political activist, Lionel Sosa, has called the proposed smoking ban economically discriminatory against hispanics.

"The proposed ordinance is economically discriminatory to members of the Hispanic community," Sosa will tell council, according to a text of his letter obtained by 1200 WOAI news. "When you look at the population of the small area bars, poll halls, and VFW halls that populate our community, you will see the overwhelming majority of those that will see their freedom of choice stripped from them by this ordinance are Hispanic-owned businesses."

Sosa's stance is somewhat mindboggling because he is a board member of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.  But he apparently feels that it is more a matter of free choice.  

I believe in free choice, but what about the free choice of the nonsmoking employee of a bar?

Part of the reason why LULAC and the NAACP oppose the new stricter ban is because it would exempt cigar bars which are seen as catering to the well-to-do, leaving lower income individuals with no place to publically smoke and socialize.  I can sort of see their point, but cigarettes are an extremely expensive habit as well.  According to this article if you pay $5.45 per pack for cigarettes, plus buy a new lighter every month, that's about $2,000 a year, not counting health costs, which are much higher.  If you are interested in finding out what your smoking habit costs you, try this smoking calculator.

So is the stricter smoking ban racist?  I guess it depends on your point of view.  I'm not a smoker and don't particularly appreciate being around smokers, but I don't go to bars very often and don't really know many smokers, so I'm really not exposed to second hand smoke.  But I do feel sorry for the nonsmoking bartenders and waitresses who have to put up with it.  Just remember about 80% of the US public are nonsmokers.

Camp bullis Under Siege

Camp Bullis is surrounded but don't worry the Cavalry is coming to its aid.

Back in 1977 when the camp was first built it was out in the boonies, 1604 was still a two lane farm road with no night time lighting.  Its remote location in the past made it a quiet, low light area perfect for night maneuvers and far enough away from housing developments to keep from bothering residents with loud noise during the day. But now the base is beset by development on all sides.  There are housing lots in the most expensive parts of the Dominion that abut the barbed wire fence that sets off the reservation.  You can't even get a cell phone signal on those streets.  Why anyone would want to build a $1 million+ house next to an army reservation where they practice shooting small arms at 23 ranges and do night time training maneuvers for military police is beyond me.


Camp Bullis' mission was in jeopardy, and could possibly have been closed in the base realignments.  But now thanks to new state laws and city ordinances the base is protected.  Sixty-five recommendations made by the Camp Bullis Joint Land Use Study were used to craft the new legislation. Most importantly, in order to perform nightime training, future construction must use "dark sky" lighting to reduce ambient light interference   and a military sound attenuation overlay which requires buildings to have sound proofing built into them.   Also a disclosure notice to homebuyers posted on the city website warning of noise from the 23 small-arms practice ranges on the base.

The military is the largest employer in SA, making them happy makes sense.

How Times Have Changed!

According to the San Antonio Remembers Blog in 1954 the San Antonio City Council voted to ban people of color from city swimming pools, making law of a de facto segregation that had existed for 90-plus years. This ruling was particularly cruel due to the fact that it took effect on "Juneteenth", the 89th anniversary of the end of slavery in Texas.

It's funny, I don't really remember segregation in San Antonio but I was born only four years after this ordinance passed.