• About
    • What Should I Read to Understand Zoning?
  • Market Urbanism Podcast
  • Adam Hengels
  • Stephen Smith
  • Emily Hamilton
  • Jeff Fong
  • Nolan Gray
  • Contact

Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Podcast
  • Economics
  • housing
  • planning
  • Transportation
  • zoning
  • Urban[ism] Legends
  • How to Fight Gentrification
  • Culture of Congestion by Sandy Ikeda
  • What Should I Read to Understand Zoning?

The Right to the City

January 29, 2015 By Jeff Fong

This post draws heavily from Tom W. Bell’s “Want to Own a City?”  and would not have been possible without his prior writing and research

The “Right to the City” is an old marxist slogan that’s as catchy as it is ill-defined. Neither the phrase’s originator Henri Lefebvre, nor David Harvey, a more recent proponent, seem to have articulated the idea in any meaningful way. Even the Right to the City Alliance stops short of explaining what the right actually is. When it comes up, it’s typically alongside a claim that something is being stolen or taken away from long-standing communities, as if neighborhoods were sovereign territory suffering from an invasion. For practical purposes, no one has any right to reside in any place beyond their ability to pay. But if the desire is for a way in which communities could actually own the places they call home, perhaps the Right to the City should be a property right.

San Francisco. Ground zero for the debate over who gets to live where and why.

San Francisco. Ground zero for the debate over who gets to live where and why.

Public Ownership through Private Property

What’s the difference between a private company and a municipal corporation? You can own the former but not the latter. Investors have clearly delineated property rights in their corporations. Residents have no equivalent ownership rights in their cities. But what if living in a city meant owning a piece of it as a legal entity as well?

Imagine that a city issued shares to its residents. Shares would vest over time and long-time residents would have more equity than new arrivals. Now assume that this city took in all of its revenue through land value taxation and that land revenues were used to pay dividends to the city’s resident-shareholders. Instead of facing displacement, incumbent residents would benefit from rising demand to live in their city.

Shares might also be used to weight the voting system. More shares could mean extra say in electing representatives, city-wide ballot measures, neighborhood level participatory budgeting, or perhaps even corrective democracy. Again, the point would be to formally privilege long-time residents over newcomers in deciding how the city is run.

All of this should be taken as more of a thought experiment than a policy proposal. For one, policy reform would go a long way in solving the problem of displacement without having to favor incumbency. There are also plenty of blanks to fill in when thinking about how a shareholder system would work. And, of course, there’s a lot that could go wrong. The devil’s in the details and given the wrong details the devil might look like hyper-nativist parochialism. But, given the right arrangement, privileging tenure through ownership could tie together the fortunes of residents with the fortunes of their city as a whole. It could encourage long-time residents to welcome newcomers with open arms. And it could offer political and economic enfranchisement beyond what the status quo is able to provide.

Tweet

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn

Filed Under: Economics, Law, Uncategorized Tagged With: gentrification, The Right to the City

About Jeff Fong

Jeff graduated from San Jose State University where he studied Politics and Economics. After college he spent time working in financial services before moving to on-demand transportation startup Lyft. He now works at the consumer logistics platform Postmates where he leads the company’s team dedicated to risk mitigation.

Along the way, Jeff has become increasingly interested in urban economics and periodically contributes to housing reform efforts in the Bay Area through the region’s various YIMBY organizations, including publishing commentary via Tech for Housing.

Comments

  1. Tom says

    January 29, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    Agreed (of course) with the fundamental idea, and with your emphasis on details. As our friend Zachary Caceres would point out, though, competition between proprietary cities offers the most promising route to finding out what works.

  2. Michael D. Setty says

    February 4, 2015 at 12:40 am

    See Tweets by @BurghDiaspora to see why I increasingly hate both “left wing” and “right wing” extremists. The left wing type is the most insipid, even though I agree with many “progressive” positions.

    What a dipshit. Here’s another: @cruickshank

  3. Michael D. Setty says

    February 4, 2015 at 12:41 am

    On the other hand, “proprietary cities” seems way like “a bridge too far” for libertarian economics, let alone its horrible political optics.

  4. Ian Mitchell says

    February 9, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    This basically is to municipal governments as anarcho-syndicalism is to corporations.

    So I have to say, I approve.

  5. Agustín says

    February 19, 2015 at 7:37 pm

    The sentence might be confusing, but proponents of the “right to the city” argue about the right to live in a diverse and thriving community and surroundings, without being marginalised to a homogeneous neighbourhood with scarce cultural and laboural opportunities. The fact that cities are the quintessential place of social interaction means that externalities are everywhere (!) in urban matters, and in such context, the market solutions will clearly not be efficient.

Trackbacks

  1. Secession lagniappe | The Mitrailleuse says:
    April 18, 2015 at 11:32 am

    […] Speculative thoughts on shareholder cities […]

Market Urbanism Podcast

Connect With Us

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Recent Posts

  • California Housing Reform: 2021 Edition
  • Why Houston Isn’t An Argument for Zoning
  • What’s Wrong With Hong Kong?
  • The Urban Planning of the North Pole
  • Are increased levels of homeownership good for affordability? No… and yes.
  • yes, minimum parking requirements do limit development
  • Opening Arlington up to Housing
  • What’s a stickplex?
  • How to Price Congestion: The Benefits of Dynamic Variable Tolling
  • Get the tuck out of here
  • In praise of fee simple ownership
  • Stuck in the (Missing) Middle
My Tweets

Market Sites Urbanists should check out

  • Cafe Hayek
  • Culture of Congestion
  • Environmental and Urban Economics
  • Foundation for Economic Education
  • Let A Thousand Nations Bloom
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Mike Munger | Kids Prefer Cheese
  • Neighborhood Effects
  • New Urbs
  • NYU Stern Urbanization Project
  • Parafin
  • Peter Gordon's Blog
  • Propmodo
  • The Beacon
  • ThinkMarkets

Urbanism Sites capitalists should check out

  • Austin Contrarian
  • City Comforts
  • City Notes | Daniel Kay Hertz
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Emergent Urbanism
  • Granola Shotgun
  • Old Urbanist
  • Pedestrian Observations
  • Planetizen Radar
  • Reinventing Parking
  • streetsblog
  • Strong Towns
  • Systemic Failure
  • The Micro Maker
  • The Urbanophile

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2021 Market Urbanism

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.