After spending more than 25 years opposing central planners who want to densify cities, I’ve been dismayed to find I also have to oppose people who claim to support free markets who want to abolish single-family zoning. I’ve made the best case I can for single-family housing in an article in Liberty Unbound, the on-line version of what was once Liberty magazine.
My argument is simple. Around 80 percent of Americans want to live in single-family homes, but most urban planners think that well over 20 percent — some plans even call for more than 50 percent — should live in apartments. Any policy that reduces the supply of single-family homes in order to increase the supply of apartments therefore supports the goals of the central planners, and true libertarians should oppose such policies as they undermine consumer preferences.
I’ve been associated with Liberty magazine for a long time, but haven’t written much for them since 2011 when they switched from print to on-line — not because I object to on-line publications but because, until last year, I had too many other outlets for my publications. Now, thanks to this very issue, my most important outlet is gone.
Back in the 1990s, the founder of Liberty magazine, Bill Bradford, invited me to speak at several conferences in Port Townsend, where he lived. I remember one of them had a session in which someone argued the libertarian case for zoning. I only caught enough of this session to see that most of the people in the audience were not persuaded. Now I find myself having to make the same case, so I suppose it is appropriate that I do so in Liberty Unbound.
The stumbling block, I suspect, is that most people who haven’t looked closely at housing markets imagine that single-family housing and multifamily housing are completely interchangeable. In fact, as I’ve noted here before, they are no more interchangeable than subcompact cars and full-size pickups. My perhaps futile hope is that, once other free-marketeers understand this and other points made in the article, they’ll stop supporting the policies being promoted by the densifying central planners.
A big problem is that many neighborhoods, outside of the northeast, were created deed-restricting most of the homes to SFH. But this was superseded by zoning when they were annexed by larger cities. I’m perfectly fine removing zoning, just as long as neighborhoods can vote in deed-restrictions and have themselves governed by HOAs if they so please.
I feel like you’re very confused or just very sloppy. You keep switching between single family housing and single family zoning. Sometimes from one sentence to the next. Yes, libertarians oppose forced densification. But they’d also oppose forced de-densification, which is what restrictive zoning is. Believe it or not, sometimes the market demands more multi-family housing than currently exists in an area, and government shouldn’t get in the way of that.
If a person chooses to live in a area that is zoned for single family housing, that is a choice that he or she thought about and picked. Others outside of that area should not be able to come in to that area and change the zoning, without the support of the existing home owners.
”
which is what restrictive zoning is
” ~FantasiaWHT
With all due respect, don’t get uppity over others being sloppy and then turn around and do the same.
Zoning by it’s nature is restrictive. There is no such thing as unrestrictive zoning.
True, but emphatic redundancy is quite different than what Randall is doing.
Keep in mind most of those pushing to end singly family zoning have never promised to always SFHs to be built.
from what i see most of those who desire less restrictive zoning (a 5 story building on a lot that used to have a 2400 sq ft house) also want the city and by extension the fedgov to shove rail, and more busses, or BRTs into these areas etc. we have city govts…that used to mean a rather shared background and culture, but long disappeared, so it might not have been to difficult to just be a good neighbor and keep things similar in a similar area. I’ve lived in multi unit and sfh areas and i think that haphazardly slapping density in sfh areas at the city level isn’t decent. sfh people are not evil, they often contribute greatly and apparently as it turns out a lot of people like sfh style living. if it can be determined that sfh living is vastly more expensive and harder to control and maintain than upward box living then sure, a city can do a tax premium on sfh stuff to compensate, big if though.
All I can say is follow the money. When you look at who is funding these think tanks that advocate for this it becomes obvious that inclusionary zoning is an ideological and investor driven plot. The push for intensification is really a slick marketing scheme. Claim to be “free market” to draw in the libertarian and anti regulation crowd and claim to be concerned about affordability, racism, and social justice to draw in the left and social justice crowd and then you have everyone on board. Granted it obviously will fix nothing but the message feels sooooo good…..
WordPress_anonymous,
I have written several books and papers advocating abolishing zoning and allowing neighborhoods to vote their own restrictions. Though Cato published most of those books and papers, it later told me it would approve of such a thing only if 100 percent of the homeowners agreed. Houston allows it with 75 percent, which I would find acceptable.
FantasiaWHT,
I am neither confused nor sloppy. When I say “single-family housing” I mean single-family housing. When I say zoning, I mean zoning.
My whole point is that people don’t just want to live in single-family homes, they want to live in single-family neighborhoods, and zoning is one way to achieve that. Until other cities allow neighborhoods to create their own restrictions with a 75 percent vote, I would oppose abolishing zoning. In any case, the pretense for abolishing zoning is that it will make housing more affordable, which is a lie. It will make it less affordable.
As a fellow libertarian, I believe in small government – it should be restricted to national defence and banning apartment buildings.