Emily Hamilton

  Michael Hamilton and I coauthored this post. Tyler Cowen has two new, self-recommending posts questioning whether or not market urbanist arguments are internally consistent. He argues that if land-use regulations are analogous to a tax on land, then either the benefits of deregulation would go to landowners or the costs of regulation are greatly overstated. The problem with this argument is that zoning is not a Georgist tax in which landowners are taxed in proportion to their land’s value; rather, zoning hugely decreases the value of the country’s most valuable land, while it props up the value of land that would be less desirable absent zoning. This is because zoning only acts as a tax on land to the extent that regulations are actually binding. A 250-foot height limit would create zero costs for the vast majority of the country, but would be devastating in Manhattan. Likewise, the large variation in land-use regulations across localities means that the costs of land-use regulation are imposed unevenly, even though there may be some correlation between land value and the tax imposed by zoning. Their repeal would have complicated and mixed effects. Tyler’s post focuses on desirable neighborhoods within the nation’s most highly-demanded cities because it assumes large increases in Ricardian rents from liberalization, i.e. those places where zoning is often the most binding. A broader view would also consider what would happen outside hip neighborhoods, especially exurban commuter suburbs that mostly exist because workers are excluded from areas closer to city centers. These suburbs could see land values plummet under broad liberalization. Whether these price changes are good or bad is a value judgement, but Tyler’s theoretical distributional concerns should also take potential decreases in land value into account. Empirically, cities with more liberal land-use regimes are more affordable, so the premise of zoning being analogous to a land value tax may not be accurate. Toronto, Houston, Chicago, and […]

Last week I wrote a post highlighting how important it is for major cities to have places for low-income people to live. Without the opportunity to live in vibrant, growing cities, our nation’s poor can’t take advantage of the employment and educational opportunities cities offer. My post offended some people who don’t think that reforming quality standards is a necessary part of affordable housing policy. On Twitter @AlJavieera said that my suggestion that people should have the option to live in housing lacking basic amenities is “horribly conservative.” Multiple people said that my account of tenement housing was “ahistorical.” They didn’t elaborate on what they meant, but they seemed to think I was suggesting that tenements were pleasant places to live, or that people today would live in Victorian apartments if such homes were legalized. On the contrary, I argue that in their time, tenements provided a stepping stone for poor immigrants to improve their lives, and that stepping stone housing should be legal today. Historical trends provide evidence that people born into New York’s worst housing moved onto better jobs and housing over time. The Lower East Side tenements were first home to predominantly German and Irish immigrants, and later Italian and Eastern European Jewish immigrants. The waves of ethnicities that dominated these apartments indicate that the earlier immigrants were able to move out of this lowest rung of housing. The Tenement Museum provides multiple oral histories of people who were born into their apartment building and went on to live middle-class lives. In The Power Broker, Robert Caro provides an account of one community that had moved out of the Lower East Side to better housing in the Bronx: The people of East Tremont did not have much. Refugees or the children of refugees from the little shtetles in the Pale of Settlement and from the ghettos of Eastern Europe, the Jews who at […]