Zoning Rules! Except When It Doesn’t

There is a new book out with the above title. The author makes an argument that while the beginning of zoning in the 1920's was primarily about the separation of different types of land uses, it has now gone too far. The author, who is both a planning academic and a member of a local zoning board for years, thinks that zoning laws have become too all-encompassing and they are keeping out people who could potentially be living in cities. His examples appear to come from larger metropolitan areas.

He says that the evolution of the zoning concept has put the control of land development in the hands of homeowners, not in the interest of the broader public. This has a way of artificially limiting density as these homeowners assert their rights through what has turned out to be a very cumbersome approval process. He also suggests that zoning limits economic growth to a large degree.

I am sure there are people that would disagree with his conclusions, but it is an interesting perspective. Here is part of the article:

     In the United States, local government is dominated by homeowner interests; one simply needs to sit through a single local zoning meeting to understand the passion these voters have. When their money is directly on the line, people will show up to defend their interests. While Fischel speaks out in support of “good-housekeeping” zoning, he clearly thinks that political dynamics have broken a once-useful tool for sound regulation, locking many people out of cities who would like to live there.
     This makes land-use regulation special. Good policy should strive to be “place neutral.” That is, local governments should not seek to enrich current residents at the cost of prospective residents. Yet, the political power of homevoters is near impossible to break. Fischel offers up a few remedies to stem the anti-density tide, which would help to varying degrees.

This dovetails perfectly with an editorial in The Palm Beach Post on July 6th titled, "Developers’ aims for western county spell traffic nightmares". The editors take aim at western sprawl and the high cost to the taxpayers in new infrastructure. What was not addressed is why western sprawl is occurring in the first place. That will be a topic for another day.