Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Category Zoning

Matt Yglesias fails to make the right case against highways

Matt Yglesias is one of the best mainstream bloggers on land use/transportation that I know of. As one blogger (who I don’t recall right now) once said, his urban planning and transportation posts could be blogs in their own right. However, it’s puzzling that in an article for Cato Unbound, he comes up with such a pathetic rejoinder to the O’Toole/Cox/Poole “vulgar libertarian” transportation cabal, who don’t seem to have ever met a road they didn’t like: Or consider the fact that Randall [sic] O’Toole is indignant about the prospect of public expenditures on mass transit systems, but appears to have little to say about public funding of highways. This, too, looks more like a case of narrow business interests than sterling free market principles. While Yglesias’ instincts are right – current transportation markets in America are highly distorted – the reason they’re distorted has little to do with the ways highways are financed. Based on some basic figures, Randal O’Toole concludes that the vast majority of road funding – over 80% – comes out of user fees. Now, of course there are still some subsidies there, but it’s really nothing compared to the subsidies that mass transit systems receive, which in America never even come close to covering operating costs, never mind capital expenditures. Now, there are some problems with the 80% number, such as the government’s favorable access to bond markets and the legacy of infrastructure that wasn’t paid for with user fees, but all in all, it’s hard to argue that roads have a subsidy advantage over mass transit. However, that’s not to say that Yglesias doesn’t have a point when he says that libertarians and conservatives have blind spots when it comes to how they see transportation. But the real government benefit that the road/car system […]

The Market, Zoning, and Freedom.

J. Brian Phillips wrote a great post at Houston Property Rights about liberal property rights in Houston, but what Brian had to say applies to every place. Here’s a snippet, but the entire post deserves a reading: when developers and builders see a need for greater density, they respond accordingly. And they can respond relatively quickly because they do not need to spend years seeking the approval of those who do not own the property. The market is a dynamic place. Each participant is motivated by his own self-interest, seeking to find the best use for his abilities and assets. When the market is unfettered, individuals can act as their judgment dictates, even when others think their ideas are folly. They need not convince the ignorant, the short-sighted, or bureaucrats. They need only convince those who choose to deal with them– their investors, their employees, and their customers. And each of these are motivated by their own self-interest. Those who seek to impede the market, which means impede the voluntary choices of individuals, are motivated by something entirely different. For all of their rhetoric about protecting the public or promoting the common good, their real goal is control. Their real goal is control over the men and women who build and produce. His writing concisely conveys many great points, and then he wraps it up with a rallying closing: no individual has a right to demand that others provide for his sustenance or happiness. He cannot compel others to provide for him, just as others cannot compel him to provide for them. He cannot force others to sacrifice for him, nor can others force him to sacrifice for them. That is not anarchy, that is the rule of objective law. That is freedom.

Dealing With NIMBYs

NIMBYism is the biggest obstacle to the evolution of vibrant urban communities, but the incentives for some to use public forums to impose restrictions on neighboring properties are great. Local politicians often bow to the most vocal residents, often with minority opinions, to avoid making waves, but their impositions are at the expense of the overall community (and the environment). In a recent ULI post and on his own blog, Rob Goodspeed discussed NIMBYism: NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) activism is as bad as ever and getting worse, according to startling new statistics from a consulting company that specializes in overcoming opposition to development. The third-annual Saint Index, a gauge of public opinion on urban development, found one-quarter of Americans say they or a family member have actively opposed a development project. That means Americans are twice as likely to oppose development than support it. Among the findings, 78 percent of Americans think there should be no new development in their community, 44 percent oppose new apartments or condominiums (up from 34 percent in 2006), and 69 percent say their local government is doing a fair to poor job on planning and zoning. In his blog Rob discusses varying definitions of NIMBYism: The key to understanding NIMBYism comes from political science, not the technicalities of zoning. NIMBYism occurs when a politically unrepresentative minority exacts unreasonable costs on the larger community, up to and including blocking otherwise supported developments. This definition comes from a provocative article by Morriss P. Fiorina titled “Extreme Voices: A Dark Side of Civic Engagement” that appears in this text. Rob discusses strategies and solutions for dealing with activists. I tend to agree that as much as we would like to just ignore them, they don’t just go away. The best strategy is to be transparent […]

Conservatives and Urbanism

Matthew Yglesias – Straight Talk on Gasoline on drilling and how conservative deviation from free-market principles has hurt the environment: Meanwhile, take something like the accessory dwellings issue. Here you have a bunch of regulations that make it illegal for people to live more densely. Illegal, in other words, to build the kind of communities where the gas price issue wouldn’t hurt so much. But there’s a movement afoot to change things. Similarly with minimum parking rules — regulations that interfere with the operation of the free market in such a way as to make it more difficult for people to live energy efficient lives. And again, there are people trying to change this. These things are regulatory barriers to solving our energy problems every bit as much as the ban on offshore drilling is. And conservatives are against regulation, right? Except the anti-drilling regulation is good for the environment and for coastal economies whereas anti-urbanist regulation is economically inefficient and environmentally destructive. Naturally, conservatives have chosen to aim all of their fire at anti-drilling regulations. And that’s the sort of thing that makes the conservative movement hard to take seriously — it’s an organized defense of existing power and privilege that now and again adopts principled rhetorical modes of various kinds but basically can’t be moved to act unless some lobbyists pay them too. Similar arguments could describe progressives too, but that (and drilling for oil) is a topic for other blogs… I agree about the inconsistent anti-market sentiments of conservatives when it comes to urbanism. Conservatives tend to embrace socialism when they can abuse government to create barriers that exclude others from their communities, but not when others benefit from socialism. (Public schools, free parking, government roads, exclusionary zoning, community centers, etc…) They are just fighting over different […]

Reason.org’s Staley Not in Favor of Property Rights if…

That is, he argues that private property should be subject to government planning restrictions if a developer building densely on its property creates a traffic burden on government roads. Wooten points out that any solution to Atlanta’s traffic congestion has to focus on roads, not transit or land use. In a more interesting twist, he takes local policy makers to task for approving higher density zoning without making the commitment to improving the road network to support it. Hmmm… Interesting point of view from a so called free-market organization that claims to support individual property rights over government planning. I think I’ll remove them from the blogroll. click, click, done Add Staley to the list of Free-Market Impostors.

Glaeser on Affordability of NY vs Houston

Harvard Economist Ed Glaeser wrote an opinion piece in the New York Sun about the differences in housing affordability and other costs of living between Houston and New York. New York is naturally more expensive than Houston because the geographical constraints force higher density development, which is more expensive to build. New York’s highly regulated land use and zoning process adds more constraints that exacerbate this problem. On the flip side, Houston has few geographical constraints and relatively loose regulation, allowing the market to allocate housing more efficiently. In conclusion, Glaeser recommends that New York could do much to improve affordability by loosening it’s many regulations. NY Sun – Houston, New York Has a Problem Why is it so much more expensive in New York? For one, supplying housing in New York City costs much, much more — for a 1,500-square-foot apartment, the construction cost alone is more than $500,000. Also, part of the reason is geographic: an old port on a narrow island can’t grow outward, as Houston has, and the costs of building up — New York’s fate, especially in Manhattan — will always be higher than those of building out. And the unavoidable fact is that New York makes it harder to build housing than Chicago does — and a lot harder than Houston does. The permitting process in Manhattan is an arduous, unpredictable, multiyear odyssey involving a dizzying array of regulations, environmental, and other hosts of agencies. A further obstacle: rent control. When other municipalities dropped rent control after World War II, New York clung to it, despite the fact that artificially reduced rents discourage people from building new housing. Houston, by contrast, has always been gung ho about development. Houston’s builders have managed — better than in any other American city — to make the […]

Amateur Economist: Zoning Hurts Housing Affordability

G.L.C. at Amateur Economist wrote an informative article on zoning, an issue which always gets attention at Market Urbanism – Why Zoning Laws Are No Longer a Benefit to U.S. Home Buyers Virtually every town in the United States has zoning laws which affect land use, lot size, building heights, density, setbacks, and other aspects of property use. Zoning laws are government regulated restrictions on how a particular piece of land can be used – residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and recreational. They impose many use restrictions, such as the height and overall size of buildings, their proximity to one another, what percentage of the area of a building lot may contain structures, and what particular kinds of facilities must be included with certain kinds of uses. G.L.C. goes on to discuss how zoning restrictions, such as height and density restrictions, constrain the supply of housing nationwide. These supply restrictions causes prices to be higher than they would be without restriction. The article also cites data from research by Ed Glaeser and Joe Gyourko: Edward Glaeser of Harvard and Joe Gyourko of the University of Pennsylvania studied this problem and attributed the error on the supply side to zoning restrictions. They studied the data from over two dozen American cities and concluded that zoning restrictions kept the housing prices high and did not allow competitive forces to correct the supply and demand position.

Urban[ism] Legend: Greedy Developers

This post is part of an ongoing series featured on Market Urbanism called Urbanism Legends. The Urbanism Legends series is intended to expose many of the myths about development and Urban Economics. (it’s a play on the term: “Urban Legends” in case you didn’t catch that) We’ve all heard it said by some NIMBY activist: “This greedy developer doesn’t care about the people of the neighborhood, he just wants to maximize his own profit.” Are developers the devil? No doubt, developers usually are self interested, and seek profit. However, just like in any business, profit seekers must try to satisfy the desires of its customers better than its competitors. The successful developer must direct capital towards creating value in the real estate market for potential customers. So, perhaps it seems particularly greedy that a developer who is creating value in a community, cares less about the current inhabitants than newcomers. But, as Henry Hazlitt wrote in the classic, Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics: the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups. here’s a link to the quote in an online version of the book Most Urbanism Legends, like most economic myths, rely on looking at policies from the perspective of one group without looking at the effects on other groups and society as a whole. This Urbanism Legend is no different. Looking deeper at the issue, the developer represents the needs of the community in a less visible, yet […]

Hyde Park Chicago Before Zoning

photo by flickr user mandus I recently came across a great blog, Hyde Park Urbanist, which focuses on urbanism in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. Hyde Park is located along Lake Michigan on the South Side and is the home of The University of Chicago as well as Frank LLoyd Wright’s famous Robie House and Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry. A recent article discusses how the area originally grew unhampered by zoning, with streets lined with businesses and shops. Then, urban renewal schemes disrupted the natural patterns of living. Presently, planners are seeing the folly of past ambitions. Unfortunately, we have to keep our eyes on the planners as they test out newfangled schemes for future generations to untangle. Hyde Park Urbanist – Before Zoning: this post is about what happened before zoning began to shape Hyde Park’s urban landscape. “urban renewal”, when the commercial heart of Hyde Park was suddenly ripped out. Planning in the late 1950s was primarily about separating residential, commercial and industrial districts. A couple generations later, most planners believe that residential and commercial uses can be combined along one block. That’s a lesson in itself. Half of today’s planning notions will look terribly wrong 50 years from today; we just don’t know which half. The commercial building patterns that Rossi describes occurred before zoning became mildly effective in the late 1920s. Those patterns can be seen as natural, in the sense that they were a response to the marketplace rather than the result of government fiat. (emphasis mine) I recommend checking out the Hyde Park Urbanist’s blog, especially for you Chicagoans…

How to Obscure Reality to Make Planners Seem Important

Regular reader, Bill forwarded this article from the New York Daily News calling it an “outstanding collection of anti-density and anti-market propaganda presented (as always) as objective journalism.” The article is riddled with misconceptions (aka Urbanism Legends) about zoning and development and is a perfect example of the quality of journalism that touches on city development issues referenced in today’s earlier post, Journalists and Cities. Let’s spot the more egregious statements from City and residents aim to keep Rockaway low-density: “The hope is to spur investment by maintaining low-scale development that fits into the area’s historic character. Similar zoning changes in Bay Ridge, Park Slope and the West Village along the Hudson River inspired great growth.” hmmm, restrictions inspire growth? Rockaway’s last zoning change came in 1961, allowing multifamily homes to be built where single-family homes once stood. The results were rapid development and streets butchered by an ungainly mix of large and small apartment buildings and homes. Wait, growth is bad? “We don’t have the space to be densely populated, and the owners of these big buildings don’t even live here” more space :: more density? not the equation I learned “Home prices should begin a steady increase if this zoning gets us better transportation.” This “zoning” that brings transportation sounds even nicer than the tooth fairy, and just as real. “I don’t know if the new upzoning of 116th St. will work, but I do know that the old, low-scale zoning on 116th St. did not bring in the amount of new businesses and investment required to improve the area.” Then again, density is good for retail… To ensure that parking does not become a problem, Gaska worked with Burden’s city planners to ensure that each new development has parking for at least 85 percent of the residents, […]

Trending now

The good old days weren’t so good
No turn on red
Douglas Schneider, DC’s anti-car pioneer
Interactive maps – YIMBY policy across the states
Are NIMBYs appeasable? Often not