How do we fix planning and zoning laws that make housing unaffordable and give planners the opportunity to impose their utopian ideas on unwilling neighborhoods? One answer has been offered by Robert Nelson, a University of Maryland professor of public policy. In various articles and books, Nelson has proposed that states allow neighborhoods to opt out of zoning and write their own zoning codes in the form of protective covenants.
Houston already has a system like this, albeit without zoning. Anyone who lives in a neighborhood that doesn’t already have protective covenants can petition their neighbors and, if a majority agree, create a homeowners association and write such covenants. Nelson has essentially proposed to allow this in all cities, and to slowly replace zoning with such covenants.
But what about rural areas? Should people be allowed to opt out of rural zoning? Since the Antiplanner is not too fond of such rural zoning, clearly my answer would be “yes.” And a law recently passed in Missouri effectively allows this to take place.
More than 10 thousand individuals in the UK get complications, making them one of the most common health problems. purchasing that discount cialis Medical procedures could possibly be thought generally if the individual is without a doubt cheap viagra generic living with bowel as well as kidney upset, grown sensors problems, revolutionary weakness, incapacitating painful sensation, or maybe spinal imbalances. Some women have an old fashion idea that because of pelvic adhesion and inflammatory factors lead to low libido or loss of desire. cialis no prescription usa If these are combined buy line viagra with expert medical advice, it shows magic to the individual.
According to this law, landowners in an unincorporated area may form a “village” provided they have the approval of a majority of the people living in that area. This village would then take over zoning and other regulatory powers from the counties. Developers frustrated by county planners and bureaucratic red tape can effectively do an end run around them.
As described in this recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, this law has the counties hopping mad because it tramples on their authority. They claim dire consequences if landowners only have to obey federal and state laws — as if there weren’t enough of those — instead of also having to follow county ordinances.
Obviously, the Antiplanner is not persuaded by these claims. California and other states with planning-induced housing shortages would do well to pass a law modeled after Missouri’s village law.
How do we fix planning and zoning laws that make housing unaffordable and give planners the opportunity to impose their utopian ideas on unwilling neighborhoods?
Here is yet another call for evidence: plz provide evidence for the assertion that your weak correlation is the cause.
You’ve been unable to answer all previous calls – what about this time? Do you pony up your super-secret evidence that sweeps aside the scholarship and makes you a household name among a tiny minority?
Or do you continue to repeat evidenceless assertions, hoping that if you say it enough times it becomes true?
DS
Ah.
No wonder the Private Property Rightists like this ruling. The rest of society can’t argue about the impacts on others resulting from the actions of a tiny minority.
Got it.
DS
Dan the plannerOr do you continue to repeat evidenceless assertions, hoping that if you say it enough times it becomes true?
JK: Of course, it is you who keeps up the “evidenceless assertions” with constant links to crappy studies or google searches, somehow expecting us to sort through thousands of papers to discover your point.
Why don’t you provide page and line number, from a peer reviewed paper, that planning and zoning laws do not make housing unaffordable.
Thanks
JK
dan,
if you are going to ask for articles and evidence for randal’s assertions, you should provide evidence and maybe a link to a good article that supports your point. otherwise whats good for the goes doesnt seem to be good for the gander.
While it’s true planners (and beaurocrats large and small) have a tendency to “impose their utopian ideas on unwilling neighborhoods”, this is not a new thing. This has been going on since the inception of zoning and land use laws. Hell, this has been going on since the inception of laws, period.
Here’s and article which illustrates how beaurocrats tell a developer in an older, small lot neighborhood he has to develop infill property to meet large lot suburban standards:
http://cms.ibj.com/ASPXPages/6iframes/FrontEndArticlesDetailPage.aspx?ArticleID=08851&NoFrame=1
It is not what type of standards are set, the problem is WHO gets to set all the standards for everyone and what, if any, input surrounding properties should play in development decisions of an individual property owner/developer.
As long as you have one person or bureaocratic entity setting narrow standards for everyone, you’re going to have arbitrariness, idiocy and worse.
Reply in spam queue.
Lorianne:
I lived in neighborhoods in Chicago and Milwaukee just like that development in Bloomington, albeit on a much larger scale. I enjoyed them greatly. I give the Bloomington developer credit — his success or failure will be the result of market decisions and not force-fed government incentives or limitations.
As to the thread topic, I’m not sure I would consider Nelson’s “collective private property right” regimes as much more than “meet the new boss, same as the old boss…” with the potential for greater abuse.
if you are going to ask for…evidence for randal’s assertions, you should provide evidence and maybe a link to a good article that supports your point. otherwise whats good for the goes doesnt seem to be good for the gander.
First, I asked for evidence for an assertion. Rules of rhetoric state that assertions may require evidence due to confusions of knowledge and belief systems, thus the questioner has the right to examine the evidence. The questioner does not have to offer counter-examples when asking for evidence; when I refute the assertion is when I provide evidence. That is: I did not make a point or refutation. I merely asked for evidence.
Nonetheless, numerous times on this site I have linked to – and excerpted from – the microecon literature that explains the factors behind Ricardian rent, including in one of the links above (in #1) you either didn’t follow or didn’t understand.
DS
As to the thread topic, I’m not sure I would consider Nelson’s “collective private property right†regimes as much more than “meet the new boss, same as the old boss…†with the potential for greater abuse.
And you’re replacing professional bureaucracy with layperson inexperience and/or incompetence. We have all kinds of HOAs and special districts out here and man, do I feel for the folks who live in some of these subdivisions. Esp. after it snows.
Admittedly, it’s less work to say ‘call your HOA’ when someone calls wondering where’s the snowplow or lawn mower or street sweeper or why is our manhole flying over my roof, but do they create better communities overall? IMHO, nah. They just offload gummint onto the regular Joes and Janes to deal with.
DS
DS –> If you’re talking about HOA’s in Colorado, I fail to see how they’re any worse than any other city, county or state. Denver does a crap job at all sorts of things. HOA’s don’t have a very high bar to hit to be doing just as well.