Freedom and Density in Tyson’s Corner
Reading this from Tyler Cowen I’m once again baffled by the mainstream libertarian approach to land use and planning issues. As I see it, it may or may not be the case that the Tyson’s Corner area, when the Dulles Rail Extension is completed, proves suitable for the kind of density that exists in the walkable portions of Arlington County. I think Ryan Avent makes a strong case that it in fact is. But even if you think Ryan is wrong, why on earth isn’t the libertarian take on this that we should permit high density construction and let the market decide what happens?
In the standard economic account of why cities and metropolitan areas exist at all, you have on the one hand benefits from agglomeration and on the other hands costs of congestion—traffic jams, higher rents, etc. If it gets to be the case that growing density at Tyson’s, notwithstanding improved transit access, starts taxing local roads to an extreme extent then it will stop making economic sense to make Tyson’s denser. At that point, developers will stop making the area denser. Why on earth would free market economists want to call in central planners to decide in advance that there’s going to be too much density and impose a lot of regulatory restrictions? Similarly, there’s a pretty clear public choice argument about why these kind of planning boards are going to systematically err on the side of permitting too little density.
Maybe us urbanists are wrong, and even though it seems to be the case that suburban sprawl in the United States is systematically supported by a series of direct and indirect subsidies and regulatory mandates that it secretly also reflects underlying market preference and it’s all just some kind of giant coincidence. But why can’t we try to put this proposition to the test?
49 Responses to “Freedom and Density in Tyson’s Corner”
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 18th, 2009 at 8:38 am
This is an elegant argument. But Cowen is just going to turn around and do the converse “you’re betraying your principles” shtick, I think.
“If MY is in favor of urban planning, why doesn’t he accept that traffic density is one of the variables that need to be planned?”
You’re right that libertarians’ stance on urban issues tends to demonstrate that politics is more tribal than philosophical. But it seems to me that a decent case could be made, from the other side, reaching the same conclusion.
September 18th, 2009 at 8:43 am
The converse argument is actually solid. Cowen could add parking to the argument. “MY wants to plan walkable cities. But when it comes to parking — whish — there goes planning out the window. ‘Let the market decide’ is suddenly Matt’s motto. ‘Charge whatever the market will bear!’ ”
I agree with MY on this, but it’s not because I’m on principle committed either to planning or to market-driven solutions. It’s because I’m committed to a certain vision of the desired end state which is probably closer to MY than Cowen. I think that’s really how people make up their mind. Commitment to the presence or absence of planning processes is secondary.
Now, libertarians do pretend that process is primary. And in that one sense, I think they’re more hypocritical than we are.
September 18th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Could it be that dense urban life creates, or at least creates the need for, the kind of collaborative behavior that Libertarians hate? A lot of American libertarianism is based around an idealization of rural life that ties in the idea of the autonomous individual.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Last time I believe his rebuttal was that the laws were never going to change so… oh well, let’s focus on important things like the top marginal tax rate!
I imagine his objection this time will be that since the government still builds and maintains roads (contra libertarian nerdvana) we have to constrain development based on that.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:06 am
I agree with MY on this, but it’s not because I’m on principle committed either to planning or to market-driven solutions. It’s because I’m committed to a certain vision of the desired end state which is probably closer to MY than Cowen.
But MY is the same way. It’s not like he believes in planning for planning’s sake, he has a vision of the desired end-state. So the “you’re betraying your principles” argument wouldn’t cut much ice — Yglesias’s argument is that we’re subsidizing the wrong thing.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Us fail English? That unpossible.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Like Ryan, you’re attributing a point of view to me which I don’t hold. Congestion pricing is one obvious solution, but it’s pretty clear that’s not going to happen. The point of my post is simply to note (more or less ironically) that even plans for urbanization (of a sort) get turned into plans for greater suburbanization, through public choice mechanisms. It’s a point about inexorability, not a normative assessment of what should happen. We’re stuck. I’m not suggesting that is an especially good state of affairs.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:14 am
The problem is that densification is not reversible. The free market is prone to overswing , so that by the time developers realise they have overdone it, it will be too late to do anything about it.
The “invisible hand” has its’ limitations, so regulation must always be part of the mix.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:16 am
[...] regulated and influenced by specific policy choices. Matt Yglesias captures this idea with a rhetorical question: Maybe us urbanists are wrong, and even though it seems to be the case that suburban sprawl in the [...]
September 18th, 2009 at 9:16 am
> Why on earth would free market economists want to
> call in central planners to decide in advance that
> there’s going to be too much density and impose a
> lot of regulatory restrictions? Similarly, there’s
> a pretty clear public choice argument about why
> these kind of planning boards are going to
> systematically err on the side of permitting
> too little density.
I’ll grant the designers of suburban office parks good faith up to 1980 or so: they may have sincerely thought that they were developing a better, or at least more desired, way of organizing offices and businesses.
From 1980 forward, however, the layout of suburban and exurban office parks has included many features specifically designed to make impossible any type of diverse, vibrant urban-type life, to utterly require more automobiles and more space for automobiles (thus making more use of automobiles mandatory; I worked in one office where we had to drive to a restaurant we could see clearly from our window because the parking lots made it impossible to walk there – and the building manager deliberately put a wall in front of the one possible walking path), and finally specifically designed to exclude the wrong sort of people not only from the building and the vicinity but from the entire surrounding area (which caused a massive headache for the cleaning services and the restaurants to be sure, since the wrong type of people tended to be the ones who would take such jobs).
So Corwin isn’t just being inconsistent: he is deliberately signaling his support for this type of social organization which absolutely requires no walkability and no usable public transport network.
Cranky
September 18th, 2009 at 9:17 am
@4: You were absolutely right in predicting Cowen’s response. When it comes to urban planning, he’s extremely interested in things that are inexorable and probably impossibly to change.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Shorter Tyler Cowen: Libertarianism and total free markets work, except when they don’t. But libertarians should ignore the non-functioning markets that don’t bother them (e.g. the ones that force large-scale exurbanization) and concentrate on deregulating drug development, energy trading (go Enron!), and Wall Street.
Cranky
September 18th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Because libertarians are anti-liberal before they are positively anything else.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:37 am
The growth of the Washington DC area is related to the growth of the federal government in general. Which, by the way, makes a libertarian’s discussion about urban planning in Tyson’s Corner analogous to a vegetarian arguing for recyclable plates at a barbecue.
Anyway, why not move the DoD to Detroit? There’s a perfectly good city, built on automotive/aerospace, that’s falling apart. It would free up Washington for the Legislative Branch and all of its hangers-on while moving the other target of influence and all of its hangers-on (defense contractors and their lobbyists) somewhere else.
It would reduce the Pentagon’s access to the in crowd (and vice versa), but I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:42 am
While I see the point about Cowen not taking a very consistent libertarian approach on this issue, I couldn’t agree with him more. Has MY ever been to Tyson’s Corner? Where is this supposed density to come from. Tyson’s is already fairly dense. More importantly Tyson’s is essentially delineated/defined by the border of 495, 123 (and route 7) as well Dulles Toll Road. How does one change that? I don’t see anyway that any of these roads can significantly reduce their throughput. Even if each of these roads was put on pillars it would make for a really ugly design that would be very unlikely to promote pedestrian friendliness.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:46 am
There cannot be enough discussion about this topic, especially with respect to efforts to remake older suburbs like Tysons in other metros across the country. The conventional wisdom that growth and development patterns are the result of some laissai faire policy structure is false. Land use regulations are tightly controlled and extraordinarily restrictive, especially in the Northeast and Midwest.
Even Houston, famously known for lack of zoning, also tightly regulates land use essentially mandating suburban-style auto-oriented densities through parking regulations and street standards, etc.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Principles, schminciples. Tyson’s Corner sucks and nothing will change that short of carpet bombing.
I have the same opinion of Tyler Cowen.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Could it be that dense urban life creates, or at least creates the need for, the kind of collaborative behavior that Libertarians hate? A lot of American libertarianism is based around an idealization of rural life that ties in the idea of the autonomous individual.
I think you’re confusing the libertarian ideal of individual autonomy (individual freedom) with the ill-informed conservative ideal of individual subsistence (less reliance on others). If your assessment is correct, I would expect to see more libertarian objection to collaborative activities such as trade.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:49 am
I do not see the need for denigrating Cowen. I disagree with him often, but he is the best kind of person to have a disagreement with — more like him, less like Glenn Reynolds please.
All that I think it is fair to point out that given a plate of inexorable problems (doesn’t everything look like that to a libertarian — everything would work perfectly if they could dictate freedom to the masses), it sure seems libertarians enjoy throwing up their hands at the wrong set.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:52 am
I share in the fun of beating up on libertarians who seem unusually quick to wave the white flag on state interventions that just happen to accord with their tribal instincts. Indeed, the argument that the political situation is not favorable for them doesn’t seem to be one that they usually accept so easily.
But fun as that may be, ultimately libertarians aren’t really the problem in a case like Tysons Corner, and they also aren’t going to be much help in providing a solution either, because their numbers are really too small to make a difference either way. So after having this bit of fun, urbanists really need to get back to the hard work of winning these battles in planning situations.
On that subject, I thought this bit from the Washington Post article linked by Cowen was clever:
The basic public choice problem in these cases is that the interests of potential future residents and local businesses are often poorly represented at the time of planning, precisely because they are not yet residents and local businesses. So one could see Bulova as smartly proposing a “compromise” that would give time for the necessary constituency to build up before these issues are firmly decided.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Where is this supposed density to come from.
Here is the vision the Tysons Land Use Task Force came up with.
There is a lot of material there, but basically the idea is for Tysons to become a collection of relatively dense mixed-use neighborhoods, with the densest areas centered on the new Metro stops. Local transportation would focus on transit, walking, and biking. There would be a fine grid of streets with sidewalks, bike lanes, circulator routes, and bus or trolley lines to farther-out communities. They are envisioning local jobs going from 105,000 to 200,000, and local residents from 17,000 to 100,000, and they specifically want more people living close to their jobs in the area.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:21 am
I am at a loss to see how Cowen is betraying his libertarian-ness in his post. He admits that the people defending the status quo are rent-seekers. And goes on to say:
“Rent-seeker he may be, but he’s right to suggest that a much denser Tysons — no matter how well done — will overwhelm the local support roads of Vienna and McLean.”
Is this correct? Well, let’s assume that MY is completely right about everything. People love density and want to live close to mass transit. They will snap up housing in Tysons Corner, driving up the prices, which will in turn drive developers to build more housing there. Which will put pressure on the roads, which will cause more traffic jams, which will cause more people to want to use transit, which will drive more people to Tysons Corner, which will drive up prices… etc. The payoff being that more and more people will take transit, fewer people will drive, and fewer people will die from typhoons generated by global warming.
Cowen’s post doesn’t quibble with the basic mechanisms posited here. Rather, it seems to say that folks living in Tysons Corner agree with this scenario. That is, they think that the plan to add more density will… add more density! Look: Crowded roads! Rather than thinking this is grand, they think it sucks. And since they think it sucks, they will use their control over things like planning to resist it. And, well, they actually do have pretty strong control over their community. Which seems like an important stumbling block.
I don’t see much in Cowen’s post endorsing this state of affairs. Again, he does not go on and on about the Tysons Corner guy as some kind of Randian hero. He calls him a rent seeker.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:22 am
> I do not see the need for denigrating Cowen.
> I disagree with him often, but he is the best
> kind of person to have a disagreement
> with — more like him, less like Glenn
> Reynolds please.
That’s a fair point.
Two issues however: libertarianism claims to be a consistent philosophy based on strong and universal principle that apply to all human relationships. The problem is that Tyson’s Corner isn’t just any ole suburban office park: it was widely hailed in the 1980s as a new way of organizing human space, and very widely copied during the exurban boom of the 80s and 90s. A large percentage of US workplaces are now organized in a manner similar to Tyson’s Corner (see _Edge Cities_ for an amusing picture of the original rural crossroads and Tyson’s General Store). If Tyson’s Corner is now a degenerate case of central planning overwhelming libertarian principles then that overwhelming has occurred nationwide – which would seem to imply that libertarianism was squeezed out in the marketplace of ideas. And perhaps is not as universal as its proponents claim?
The second issue is that libertarians make very good useful idiots for the Radical Right. For some reason libertarians are viewed by those who control our discourse as Serious People(tm) and are treated as such, being given a far wider representation in newspapers, magazines, and talking head shows than their numbers or acceptance of their views among the population would suggest. Heck, even Brad DeLong, a (conservative) Democrat economist, is constantly organizing seminars intended to validate libertarians and bring them into the mainstream of academic thought. Yet oddly all that libertarians do in practice is validate the frames of the Radical Right and reluctantly, reluctantly support Republican candidates. That history just can’t be ignored because a few prominent libertarians are decent fellows.
Cranky
September 18th, 2009 at 10:26 am
No answer, a puzzle, a paradox. But if you have an unsolvable physical restriction, then something is going to crash your plans, either public choice or the free market.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Sorry, Matt, but developers won’t stop making an area denser even when traffic congestion already overtaxes the local road network. Congestion is a cost that is usually external to a developer’s return-on-investment analysis. If you can’t internalize that and other externalities, then to mitigate the impact you need to rely upon the less efficient market intervention known as land use planning.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:43 am
I think a lot of libertarians simply are constitutionally uncomfortable with the existence of other people, who do things like interact with them and force them to recognize their existence. The cocoon of the car and the moat of the fenced yard are armor for the libertarian psyche.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Sam M,
The point is a little more subtle than you are acknowledging. The point isn’t that Cowen is endorsing this state of affairs, but rather that he is immediately leaping to the conclusion that the public choice problem is unsolvable and thus that the result is inexorable. And again, the broader point is that libertarians have a tendency to wave the white flag like that more quickly if it happens that the result is one that fits with their tribal instincts.
And in fact this is a situation where the fight may well be winnable, meaning that at least for some time land owners in Tysons could be less restricted in their use of their land. Which makes Cowen’s immediate waving of the white flag all the more annoying, although as I noted above, in the end the active support of the Cowens of the world probably wouldn’t tip the balance anyway.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:53 am
It is also fascinating that Tyson’s Corner is now considered an “older”, or even “aging”, suburb, since as I noted it was designed in the 1980s specifically to be the new-new thing and to dominate not only the urban areas but also the “older, aging” inner-ring suburbs. As far as I can tell these exurban paradises were designed with an implicit assumption that they would _always_ be the newest, most dominant kid on the block, and no provisions were made for graceful aging or reuse. Now that the first wave of exurbs are themselves becoming obsolete it will be interesting to see how they develop – or degenerate.
Cranky
September 18th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Yeah, the problem here is that libertarians, in everything they ever say and do that has any influence over the public debate, are a subset of the GOP. Which means pushing policies that shovel money to the wealthiest few, and indifference to the way most Americans live. The principles they claim to care about evaporate in the mist as soon as they suggest support for a policy that won’t give goodies to wealthy whites.
J.W. Hamner had it exactly right.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Perhaps not, but it’s not ill-deserved. He thinks he’s Levitt–no, he thinks he’s better than Levitt–but his approach is exactly opposite. Instead of taking large data sets, teasing out an interesting trend, and telling a story, he crams every anecdote that comes his way into some unimaginative, overly simplistic free market fable in an dismissive, matter-of-fact way.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I think a lot of libertarians simply are constitutionally uncomfortable with the existence of other people
This is true, and it’s why libertarianism has some residual attraction, for me at least. Though rather than wrap myself in a two-ton steel enclosure (as Atrios would say), I’d prefer to go pitch my tent in the desert. Except that when I get there, I find that there’s no water because the government has sent all of it to magical libertarian free-market-created cities where fat people live in huge, over-air-conditioned houses and read Tyler Cowen’s blog.
The principles they claim to care about evaporate in the mist as soon as they suggest support for a policy that won’t give goodies to wealthy whites.
Yup.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Matt,
I think that you and Tyler are having two separate arguments. Tyler believes that Libertarians are against zoning laws. While I don’t believe that is generally true, even if it is it isn’t a position against sprawl.
Furthermore, much of the argument you two are having isn’t really on the same page. Suburbs don’t necessarily = sprawl. Cities don’t necessarily negate sprawl. Houston Texas is a city that contains many places that one might consider sprawl. Likewise Oak Park Illinois contains many places one might think of as “walkable” or “urban” or whatever is the opposite of sprawl.
So far, Tyler has shifted the semantics of the debate. He has never really shown himself or libertarians to be against sprawl, only zoning laws.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Ted:
@4: You were absolutely right in predicting Cowen’s response. When it comes to urban planning, he’s extremely interested in things that are inexorable and probably impossibly to change.
Conservatives of all stripes like to highlight that things are inexorable. “That’s just the way it is.” Many in fact argue all the time that to try to make things better – however scientifically and democratically – will only make things worse: that the worst kind of people are the crusading idealists. See George Will and Iraq.
These conservatives are cynical, usually comforably so. They’re cynical, bitter and callous.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:54 am
I have read Tyler’s post, this post and the article in the Wa-Po and there are so many different discussions going on here that my head spins.
But may I point out that the Wa-Po article does not support Tyler’s contention (at least I think that is what he is saying) that walkable urbanism is impossible in Tyson’s corner. The planner’s are only saying that the density proposed by the task force is too high. “Too high” does not mean that another density might not be reasonable. etc etc. or that there is no way to get to walkable urbanism in Tyson’s Corner.
Other than that, these discussions of “libertarianism” and whether Tyler is sufficiently libertarian seem like a diverting and irrelevant tum-tum tree. Very relevant and somewhat disturbing is why so many comments here and at Tyler’s are so much against walking.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:59 am
I would go with the term Glibertarian, but don’t have a definition.
So far as I can tell, (G)liberatarians are personal, local, and centered on the profit motive. Ideology makes for good cover and sucks in confused conservatives looking for leadership and slogans. It also makes them fodder for the conservative (GOP) machines, mainly because they sell their own mailing lists, but partially because they get support. Outside personal ideology, don’t dismiss the organale de persdue, LaRouche et. al., for which “minion” remains both profit center and street force.
On a continuum of progressive, liberal, democrat, moderate, republican, conservative, right-wing, and batshit wacko, where do the Glibertarians lie? I content they are either to the left of progressives or the right of wackos. That an educated spokesman claims affinity and uses it as a basis for an opinion (on urban design in this case) garners press, but does not enhance his prescriptions, no ideology required.
At any rate, your readers are excellent: Package the responses for a book.
September 18th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
> diverting and irrelevant tum-tum tree.
Wow: a tum-tum tree. A “tum-tum tree”. Can’t get more powerful than that.
Cranky
September 18th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
The irony here, of course, would be that you can only prevent congestion by increasing density past the point at which behaviors change, and new residents choose a car-free ’skyscraper’ lifestyle.
September 18th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
DTM says:
“The point isn’t that Cowen is endorsing this state of affairs, but rather that he is immediately leaping to the conclusion that the public choice problem is unsolvable and thus that the result is inexorable. And again, the broader point is that libertarians have a tendency to wave the white flag like that more quickly if it happens that the result is one that fits with their tribal instincts.”
Fair enough. But is that really thr larger point of this post? I see MY writing this:
“why on earth isn’t the libertarian take on this that we should permit high density construction and let the market decide what happens?”
What did Cowen write in the linked post that illustrates the libertarian argument is anything other than that? THis was his kicker:
“So the result at Tysons likely will be a bigger edge city with broader roads and more difficult illegal U-Turns.”
I think it’s entirely plausible for someone of any political stripe to see this as the likely outcome of the debate. And I think it’s possible to do that without endorsing the outcome.
Look, MY does this all the time. He can point to one plan or other and point to its strengths and weaknesses. He can point out that reality is reality, and one plan might not be as good as the next, but it’s the best progressives can expect. Etc. And he can do that without saying that the compromise is his preferred end-point.
We can do this all day. I can bitch and moan that CAP doesn’t focus nearly enough on, say, nanny-state issues. It doesn’t rant nearly enough as I might like it too about the drug war. One thing i could do is start my own think tank. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that their insufficient bluster in taking on my pet causes is evidence that they don’t care about them.
September 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Sam M,
Fair enough in return: when I wrote “the point” I was more referring to the point as it had emerged in the comment section, and not necessarily Matt’s original post.
September 18th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Zoning is presently a government function. For real liberty, private zoning rights would need to be established among land owners. Then we can drop the “WE” as in densities that “WE” will allow, and leave it up to private landowners to decide.
Eliminating all zoning makes as much sense as eliminating all traffic laws. You know, like permanently abolishing highway user fees. If there’s too much congestion, then people will simply drive somewhere else, right?
Better to place all rules in private hands (i.e., those that will suffer the consequences of making wrong decisions) than to leave it to a political process.
September 19th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Is that Tyson’s Corner in the little picture there? With the cool blue trolley, and the safe, unhurried people -lazily moseying under awnings and trees? And the Free Marketeers are in cahoots with corrupt Central Planners to prevent the advent of this happy corner, in order to advance the cause of cars and congestion instead?
The solution is simple: change the Central Planners and eliminate the Free Marketeers. Run them over with bicycles if need be. Tyson Corner must live. Think Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8GRQHsAVjI
September 19th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
The libertarians, or at least their foundations, are paid and bought by big oil and the sprawl exploiters. Look who gives large endowments to Cato, Reason and Americans for Prosperity; Koch (Oil, Gas Land and Lumber), Scaife (Banks, Oil, and Aluminum) and Exxon.
The old white folks who show up at public meetings are just frightened and misinformed victims of oil sponsored demagoguery. Is this not evident from an agenda that frames peak oil and global warming as part of a lefty conspiracy to deny THE PEOPLE of their “Liberty?” The only “Liberty” they really care about is their “Liberty” to accumulate unlimited wealth and power at the expense of the environment and THE PEOPLE.
September 19th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I’m just going to say that the views and behaviors that are being attributed to Cowen on this thread just don’t seem to jive with the Cowen I’ve read. A more appropriate characterture of his views would be to say that he always likes the status quo.
September 20th, 2009 at 2:19 am
I’m seeing quite a lot of attacks on libertarians here which don’t make much sense. One that caught my eye:
(doesn’t everything look like that to a libertarian — everything would work perfectly if they could dictate freedom to the masses)
Doesn’t everyone with firm political views believe something like this? That everything would start working much better if they had their way? If I thought a policy wouldn’t work well, I wouldn’t support it. As far as “perfect”: I’m big on choice, and a fan of economics (the science studying the allocation of scarce resources); it’s pretty obvious to me that utopia is not an option. The best you can do is remove society’s self-made barriers to human cooperation and creativity. I can only truly speak for myself, but I suspect few libertarians would disagree with that.
September 20th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Maybe us urbanists are wrong …
Us few, us happy few.
September 20th, 2009 at 10:08 am
When are you going to figure out that Tyler Cowen is not a libertarian?
September 20th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Tyler is not a libertarian-extremist. He is a pragmatic and thoughtful guy who knows economics.
The strict big-L Libertarian position has always been against zoning.
The Libertarian Party Platform of 2000 (back when it was very long and detailed rather than today’s short philosophical text) said:
“Resource management is properly the responsibility and right of the legitimate owners of land, water, and other natural resources. We oppose government control of resource use through eminent domain, zoning laws, building codes, rent control, regional planning, urban renewal, or purchase of development rights with tax money. Such regulations and programs violate property rights, discriminate against minorities, create housing shortages, and tend to cause higher rents.”
Here is the McMinn County Libertarian Party advocating for a zoning-free McMinn County:
http://mcminnco.net/positions/zoning.pdf
Here the Johnson County (MO) Libertarians led a successful grass-roots campaign to block county-wide planning and zoning:
http://www.showmefreedom.org/2009/April/JohnsonCountyZoning.shtml
September 20th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
“Why on earth isn’t the libertarian take on this that we should permit high density construction and let the market decide what happens?”
Um, it is. Read anything by Cato or other libertarian groups. Tyler, as always is an exception.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
[...] reduce density” and willfully ignoring solutions to the problems the planners cite (Yglesias piled on here). Cowen responded, with an argument about how the existing infrastructures in place in Tysons are [...]