[…] Find More Informations here: marketurbanism.com/2009/06/02/rothbard-the-urbanist-part-2-safe-streets/ […]

I agree that zoning is largely used to exclude undesirable people. It’s hard to see how they would vote differently, though. In rich and poor suburbs, voters routinely vote for high property taxes for some inexplicable reason.

I wonder what would happen if, say, electric rates were put to a popular vote.

Incidentally, one of the best illustrations of the effect of zoning (and school-district zoning) in the NY area is the border between Hempstead and Garden City. In some places, the boundary is mid-block, and only houses on the Hempstead side have bars on the windows. My guess is that window bars are banned in Garden City. Or burglars only work the poor end of the block.

Needless to say, the demographics on these blocks are quite polarized.

I agree that zoning is largely used to exclude undesirable people. It’s hard to see how they would vote differently, though. In rich and poor suburbs, voters routinely vote for high property taxes for some inexplicable reason.

I wonder what would happen if, say, electric rates were put to a popular vote.

Incidentally, one of the best illustrations of the effect of zoning (and school-district zoning) in the NY area is the border between Hempstead and Garden City. In some places, the boundary is mid-block, and only houses on the Hempstead side have bars on the windows. My guess is that window bars are banned in Garden City. Or burglars only work the poor end of the block.

Needless to say, the demographics on these blocks are quite polarized.

On the subject of exclusion of the poor, there is a more insidious factor at work. Until the 19th century it was common for the poor and the rich to live side-by-side in harmony. What changed was the arrival of universal suffrage. Suddenly political power was available to the poor, and they could turn that weapon against the rich. Universal suffrage in France, for example, was instituted during the revolution (with a violent outcome) then revoked for three decades after the restoration of the monarchy. Voting rights were limited to property owners. That time is remembered by architectural historians as a period where the rich and the poor would live in the same buildings, the rich having the first two floors, the middle class the middle floors, and the poor the attic floors. (This was the time before elevators.) Once the third republic with universal suffrage returns, the rich start isolating themselves in their own, exclusive neighborhoods.

This continues today, and some mayors of rich communes do not even pretend that their zoning rules have any other purpose but to keep out unwanted voters. It’s a problem of security. People do not own their communities, and so they use the zoning systems to protect their community from being taken away from them. And if you look at what happened to places like Detroit, their fear is entirely justified.

On the subject of exclusion of the poor, there is a more insidious factor at work. Until the 19th century it was common for the poor and the rich to live side-by-side in harmony. What changed was the arrival of universal suffrage. Suddenly political power was available to the poor, and they could turn that weapon against the rich. Universal suffrage in France, for example, was instituted during the revolution (with a violent outcome) then revoked for three decades after the restoration of the monarchy. Voting rights were limited to property owners. That time is remembered by architectural historians as a period where the rich and the poor would live in the same buildings, the rich having the first two floors, the middle class the middle floors, and the poor the attic floors. (This was the time before elevators.) Once the third republic with universal suffrage returns, the rich start isolating themselves in their own, exclusive neighborhoods.

This continues today, and some mayors of rich communes do not even pretend that their zoning rules have any other purpose but to keep out unwanted voters. It’s a problem of security. People do not own their communities, and so they use the zoning systems to protect their community from being taken away from them. And if you look at what happened to places like Detroit, their fear is entirely justified.

As it is, I believe that New York City police are not allowed to live in the precinct in which they work because it would present a conflict of interest. Is this good or bad? It probably increases crime, but reduces false arrests and graft. It’s also the opposite of what Rothbard suggests.

All that said, Rothbard makes a very good point. Where do you feel safer: In your home or in a store — or on a public street, subway car/station, public housing project, etc?

As it is, I believe that New York City police are not allowed to live in the precinct in which they work because it would present a conflict of interest. Is this good or bad? It probably increases crime, but reduces false arrests and graft. It’s also the opposite of what Rothbard suggests.

All that said, Rothbard makes a very good point. Where do you feel safer: In your home or in a store — or on a public street, subway car/station, public housing project, etc?