I would argue that the government nominally (not legitimately) “owns” the street, and thus claims the right to allocate its use to whomever it choses. However, just like any other case of central planning, it fails to allocate usage effectively. The ones who use a good or service are disconnected from the ones who allocate it, which forces disputes like these to be resolved on the political battlefield, with the more politically connected party usually winning. Whereas the parking situation has peaceful, rational solutions that can be arrived at through market mechanisms.

Thus, although cities claim ownership of the parking, we can clearly see that they have failed in their roles, and they should transfer the property to those who actually put it to use and can maintain it.

If it is owned by the city, then there should be no complaints that a previously free service is no charged for as demand has exceeded the supply. Charging for the service is the economically sound arrangement, and result in revenue to the city. If it is the householder, then there should be no obstacle to the householder putting a parking meter(s) in his space or spaces and charging others for the use of it. And at times when he wishes it for his sole use, ‘hooding’ the meter, with a tag indicating that when hooded the only vehicle permitted to be parked as that with registration ‘xxxxx’.

In default of either of these options being adopted, the second best is surely “Smart Growth” arrangements.

The new development will also hasten the development of local trade, commerce and jobs, so it neatly incorporates the solution to the problem (as you see it it).

This is why it frustrates me for a site called Market Urbanism to bash Smart Growth and its cousin, New Urbanism. The principles behind these movements, which are already trickling up to federal policy, hold out a lot of promise for creating a freer and fairer development process. Yet because they are government policy, libertarians instinctively reject them. It’s a missed opportunity, if you ask me.

Let me know if I don’t address it thoroughly enough.

At one time in the past I agreed with New Urbanism and Smart Growth, because philosophically I was along the lines that “the ends justify the means.” However, the more I reflected on it, studied the subject more in-depth, and approached it from a more rigorous philosophical standpoint, I cannot help but approach things from “the means justify the ends” morality.

So, I see the moral aspects of libertarianism as primary over the policies that might attempt to mimic the results of the market through coercive means. Does that relegate the ideas to the sidelines of the city planning dialogue? Pretty much. But I can’t help but hope that the consistently principled approach will prevail in the end. This side of the argument needs to be voiced or forever be ignored in the “ends justify the means” debate.

Let me know what you think.

Residents will not take kindly to the argument that public resources do not actually belong to them personally. They will not take the loss with good grace. They’re simply going to see that the addition of a new building will effectively cut their pay by 10 percent (or whatever) and they will fight like hell — unless you’ve got a very compelling demonstration that they should not fight like hell.

They are justly concerned that what was, in many regards, their property (in commons) will be opened up to a larger market. I think forcing a new development to do something is a more arbitrary and indirect, less just solution, because it is impossible to measure the results.

For example, at the condo I own in Chicago, there was plenty of street parking when we first moved in. The developer was required to provide a certain number of spaces, yet many went unsold. Many new buildings have been built, and the street parking will never be adequate for the ones who chose not to buy the space.

Anyway, my quick answer is that we should not deal with the theoretical parking that doesn’t yet exist, but recognize that the current users of the “commons” have the most legitimate claim to the already existing parking spaces. I would rather make their legitimate ownership claim legal and official before forcing developers to do something less direct that doesn’t ultimately solve the problem.

It’s a very complex topic, and hopefully I can address it in more detail.

This means that while most people would probably find fault with the status quo development model, they would resist any incremental change to it as well, for example by relaxing zoning codes mandating single-use and low densities. The sad truth is that in many cases this NIMBYism is completely understandable – because under our model, more people living nearby only means more cars, more bland subdivisions, and more crass commercial strips. So of course existing residents will seize upon local government powers to frustrate free market tendencies, only further perpetuating destructive land use patterns. Given these circumstances, can any libertarian honestly say they wouldn’t, either?

Now a good deal of the anti-market sentiment that gets exercised at the local level is due to policies coming from higher levels of government – mostly glaringly subsidies for auto use. But not all of it. I believe that the market cannot and should not be the only guiding force behind our built environments. The most loved places, from urban to rural, are also manifestations of cultural values. Whether those values are formalized into law is almost irrelevant; what matters is that systems of communal control have always had a role in place building. Take zoning, for example. To some extent, people should have the right to a degree of predictability over their proximate physical environment. Homes comprise the largest financial asset for the vast majority of people and their willingness to invest in and improve their properties is dependent on a reasonable, but by no means absolute, degree of communal control over their local context. Of course, the questions of what’s reasonable, of who comprises the communities and the geographic area over which it has jurisdiction are difficult. And I would completely agree that the way most municipalities answer these questions, namely through Euclidian zoning, is overly coercive and wrong-headed. But that doesn’t obviate the need for some communal response. Ultimately, I think that its impossible to find “optimal” solutions to regulating land use, in the sense that economists and the physicists they are enamored of find optimal solutions to equations. But this is precisely where normative values, expressed in the confines of a constitutional democracy, must enter the picture. Not coincidentally, this is also the point where libertarians have nothing more to add to the conversation.

Which isn’t to say libertarians can’t contribute to a productive dialogue in city planning. They’re very good at explaining the consequences of government interventions, I’ll admit that. But I encourage them to show up at the next planning board meeting and tell all in attendance that their town should abolish all zoning and subdivision regulations. See how far they get!

Instead, what we need to work towards (Smart Growthers and libertarians alike), is a policy framework for land use and transportation decisions that better accommodates growth – particularly denser growth in a more urban context. As I mentioned before, NIMBYism, which both restricts individual freedom and leads to destructive outcomes, is often motivated by legitimate fears over development impacts that existing residents bear but the new residents don’t pay for. Urban environments, by contrast, have the potential to turn growth, which in suburban contexts is a negative externality, into a positive externality – more people in a city means better transit, more exciting street life, a greater variety of nearby destinations, and ultimately higher real estate values (I should credit Christopher Leinberger for this observation). With the impacts of development reduced, existing residents and businesses would be willing to cede more freedom to newcomers, plus have more leeway themselves to modify or expand their own real estate. The result is both a process that enhances freedom and an outcome of better urban places.

This is why it frustrates me for a site called Market Urbanism to bash Smart Growth and its cousin, New Urbanism. The principles behind these movements, which are already trickling up to federal policy, hold out a lot of promise for creating a freer and fairer development process. Yet because they are government policy, libertarians instinctively reject them. It’s a missed opportunity, if you ask me.