Libertarianism in Suburbia
Ample parking and sexy trees (cc photo by pink fish 13)
A while back I noted that the kind of libertarians who one would expect to go into conniptions if Fairfax County, Virginia were to propose a stringent rent control law seem surprisingly blasé about the vast array of land use restrictions that infringe economic liberty in that county and most other American jurisdictions. Indeed, some libertarian economists at George Mason University go so far as to laud America’s large houses and plentiful parking specifically as evidence of the superiority of America’s free market economic policy, blissfully unaware that in the United States pervasive regulation requires the construction of bigger houses and more parking spaces than the market would provide.
To this, Bryan Caplan responded with a piece that I think basically proves my point as he grapples with the cognitive dissonance involved by tossing off the (admittedly accurate) fact that some elements of federal policy—for example, large-scale federal ownership of desolate land in the Western United States—place some curbs on sprawl. To this I mostly say what Ryan Avent said, but it’s worth emphasizing the extent to which Caplan is simply missing the point. The point is not about whether policy favors “suburbs” or “cities” but about the fact that the actually existing built environment in the United States—and especially those aspects of it constructed over the past thirty years—overwhelmingly reflect the influence of central planning.
It’s possible for a suburban locale to adopt a planning regime that favors high-density mixed use transit oriented development, and we see that in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor of Arlington County and to a lesser extent on Arlington’s Blue Line corridor and near the Silver Spring and Bethesda Metro stations in Montgomery County. But those examples stand out because they’re relatively rare among recent construction. Much more typical is a planning regime, like the one that exists in Fairfax County, where in broad swathes of land it is illegal to build anything other than a detached single family home. The size of the yard that surrounds the detached single family home is typically set by central planners, as is the minimum number of parking spaces that the home must have. In lots where it’s legal to build multi-family dwellings the planners will have specified how tall the dwelligs may be, how far they must be set back from the street, and how many parking spaces they must have (in Fairfax, 1.6 spaces per unit). Where you can build retail outlets is decided by the planners, and they, too, are subjected to rules about maximum height, minimum setback, minimum parking, etc.
And Fairfax is not unique in this regard—cities and suburbs across America have regulations of this sort. The regulations vary, of course, and this is why not every place is identical. There are also portions of towns and cities that were built earlier, under different regulatory regimes that were more friendly toward density and mixing of uses. And of course in many suburban locales the regulations are extremely similar, which is part of the reason that a lot of America is a bit generic looking. You can like this or not, but what you can’t do is deny that these policy decisions around land use are substantially shaping the way life in America is lived. Insofar as people want to valorize that mode of life in order to stick it to hipsters, Europhiles, left-wing intellectuals or what have you, what you’re valorizing is a regulatory planning regime aimed at promoting a specific way of living and the interests of specific industries.
96 Responses to “Libertarianism in Suburbia”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 8th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Caplan’s line about the development that would occur on federal land were it to be privatized is the usual know-nothing libertarian whine. Federal land in the west has been so degraded that its leases are cheaper than any kind of capital upkeep consistent with private ownership. If ranchers, “forest service” companies, and miners wanted to own it, they would get their captive congresspeople to sell it to them real cheap. The problem is that it’s less than worthless, so they’d rather keep things as they are.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Oh, self -esteeming, in suburbia
My shelf is teeming
A pet named Chia
September 8th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Am I missing the part where you show wherelibertarians are opposing efforts to loosen these restrictions?
September 8th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Here is the problem with Craplan’s argument. He says:
In my experience, 95% of the principled opponents of zoning (as opposed to people who just want a different kind of zoning) are libertarians.
“In my experience” is not evidence. He makes a completely baseless assertion without a shred of evidence, and that is intellectually dishonest. And he knows it. Somehow libertarian always turn out to be liars. Apparently to him the number of google hits is evidence? Really? These people are like petulant children: giving them attention only feeds into their bad behavior.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Am I missing the part where you show wherelibertarians are opposing efforts to loosen these restrictions?
Matt claims they are “surprisingly blase” about these restrictions, not actively defending them.
That said, I think a lot of libertarians are willing to pay lip service to opposing these sorts of regulations. What I do think is common and a bit odd is that they are defensive about the possibility that these regulations have led to a lot of distortion in development, which really seems to be a cultural-tribal thing and not a byproduct of their nominal philosophy. And I think Caplan’s piece supports this thesis.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
This is really very simple. The agenda of the “libertarian” megaphones in the US is set entirely by the rich people who give the money that keeps them going. Those people are totally focused on overturning regulations that impede their ability to make even more money. They like zoning, because it keeps away poor people and minorities and protects (they think) the value of their property. A reason staffer who started a campaign against zoning would soon cease to be a Reason staffer.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Insofar as people want to valorize that mode of life in order to stick it to hipsters, Europhiles, left-wing intellectuals or what have you, what you’re valorizing is a regulatory planning regime aimed at promoting a specific way of living and the interests of specific industries.
I think John Cole put it pretty well last week, on a related topic: glibertarian support for the Tea Parties, despite the fact that the Republican alternative, to the extent that it’s coherent at all, would be just as bad to a principled libertarian.
Also, I followed your link to Ryan Avent, and read his post quoting Bryan Caplan, and wow, Caplan is stupid. His leading “anti-suburban policy”:
So, libertarians: anti-sewer. For what it’s worth from memory, Vermont’s zoning laws won’t allow septic tanks on new development on lots smaller than four acres in most of the state, because we don’t want sewage leaking off one’s property. Maybe four acres is unreasonably large, I don’t know, I’m not an engineer and Vermonters aren’t real Americans anyway, but some concern for this kind of thing seems totally fair.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Oh God. “Valorize.” Please God spare me “valorize.”
September 8th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Matthew, of course, presents zero evidence that libertarians don’t care about zoning restrictions. He makes up the fantasy that they are “blase”, even though it is completely false. But, hey, if you’ve got the extra straw, why not create a man out of it?
September 8th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Or to put it more simply, in terms similar to those Atrios uses for his urban hellhole killing zone:
The kind of urban environments that Americans choose to visit, appear to cherish — and which are the model for Disney’s Main Street USA — are ones that could not be built today in most parts of the United States because of local regulations.
The corollary to this is the number of planning boards that are in the pocket of local property developers.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
The thing is, when given a choice between irritating a liberal and taking a principled, thoughtful stand on an issue, most libertarians seem to prefer the former approach. Thus, if you’re a liberal criticizing, say, Walmart, or corporate agribusiness for, well, anything, libertarians will get a good laugh tossing off some nonsense about free markets and hippies and how you must want poor people to starve, despite the fact that their nominal policy preferences might dovetail nicely with your criticisms. Then they’ll throw in a little bait-and-switch when they explain that, despite defending some business practice or another on free market grounds, its failure to deliver an optimal outcome is invariably the result of government intervention.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Matthew, of course, presents zero evidence that libertarians don’t care about zoning restrictions.
Al, of course, presents zero evidence that they are. Hack harder, Al!
September 8th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Matthew Yglesias,
The point is not about whether policy favors “suburbs” or “cities” but about the fact that the actually existing built environment in the United States—and especially those aspects of it constructed over the past thirty years—overwhelmingly reflect the influence of central planning.
What “central planning?” The zoning ordinances and other regulations you mention are almost all local in scope, as you seem to recognize later in your post. They weren’t imposed on unwilling communities by imperial central planners. They arose through the local political process in each place.
As you correctly note, Arlington chose to enact regulations permitting or encouraging denser, more transit-oriented development. Other communities could have done the same thing if they wanted to.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Neither DTM or Matt has adduced any real evidence that the zoning of suburbs (no matter how ridiculous) has been a primary driver of suburban sprawl. Caplan seems to think it hasn’t been and I’m inclined to agree with him. As long as that intuition hasn’t been disproven (which Matt hasn’t even begun to do) it doesn’t make much sense for libertarians, or anyone, to get all up in arms about suburban zoning, so, given the premises, it’s not at all surprising that libertarians don’t spend much time ranting about suburban zoning (though most of them probably oppose it in principle).
September 8th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
> Oh God. “Valorize.” Please God
> spare me “valorize.”
Let’s have a discussion “around” the use of valorize.
Cranky
September 8th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
> What “central planning?” The zoning ordinances
> and other regulations you mention are almost all
> local in scope, as you seem to recognize later in
> your post. They weren’t imposed on unwilling
> communities by imperial central planners. They
> arose through the local political process in each place.
Throughout the 1980s and 90s Naperville IL, then the fastest growing suburb in the US, kept the one and only copy of its plumbing code in a locked basement room at City Hall. The general public was welcome to view it – one day each month. After signing a register and providing a copy of your drivers license. Asking to view the plumbing code guaranteed a visit from a building inspector to your house within a week, and that inspector never left without writing up at least one violation (not in any way related to plumbing repairs). Your children could also expect to have a few visits with Officer Friendly.
Ordinances and other City Council business involving plumbing in Naperville referred only to section and chapter of the plumbing code, never to the complete text, and were passed on voice vote (usually after suspending public discussion).
Yeah, real public input there. Plumbing codes, as many have explained, have a significant effect on what types of housing can be built.
Cranky
Hey Mixmaster: hope you enjoyed your sabbatical. Did you get a chance to visit those neighborhoods in Chicago that you claim are physically impossible to build?
September 8th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Missed the earlier post about Tyler Cowen, but this is a pretty weak argument on his part:
The main Arlington Co. library, and Whole Foods, and a Safeway aren’t right next to your house, but they are RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR OFFICE, almost literally.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Neither DTM or Matt has adduced any real evidence that the zoning of suburbs (no matter how ridiculous) has been a primary driver of suburban sprawl.
Nor did I purport to. But one of Caplan’s commentators provided a number of citations if you are interested in investigating this issue further.
Caplan seems to think it hasn’t been and I’m inclined to agree with him. As long as that intuition hasn’t been disproven . . . .
Since when do libertarians start with the “intuition” that heavily regulated and subsidized markets are likely to just happen to produce the same outcome as unregulated and unsubsidized markets? That takes an awful coincidence.
Now if your intuition tells you that the balance of policies is actually distorting things in a pro-urban, anti-sprawl way, that would be interesting–although I think the policies cited by Caplan are way too weak to have such an effect (and some just seem irrelevant or actually work the other way).
But again, the notion that somehow all this just happens to cancel out and deliver the same outcomes as without regulation and subsidies is really rather fanciful.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Al, of course, presents zero evidence that they are.
I’m not making the claim either way. Matthew, OTOH, is making such a claim – baselessly, as far as I can tell. (Caplan, at least, says that his “experience” is that libertarians actually do care about these things. FWIW.) As an experiment, we could, say, take a look at Supreme Court cases on zoning over the past 20 or 30 years and see which side, if any, libertarian-oriented organizations supported.
In addition, I don’t see Caplan “valor[ing]” the current regulatory schema. He seems to be saying that the current regulatory schema has produced some positive effects, but that mean that Cpalan believes that the current regulatory schema’s benefits outweighs the costs, or that Caplan does not believe that a less-regulated alternative is not preferred.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
The main Arlington Co. library, and Whole Foods, and a Safeway aren’t right next to your house, but they are RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR OFFICE, almost literally.
In fairness, it matters. Stopping at a store near your home after work is easy and stopping at a store near work after work isn’t, because you have to carry whatever you bought the rest of the way. Right now I do most of my grocery shopping after work, at a store separated from my house by about a two-mile bus ride and a seven-block walk. If I was shopping for a family (or just cooked more and bought dinner less) I’d shop at a crappier store with a more inconvenient bus route but a shorter walk, or get a car.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
The missing part here is that those big parking lot requirements are actually a very good idear. Trust me they are. I do life at the greener European grass. We actually also have those regulations, but not hard enough.1 parking lot per flat is just not enough. The streets are used as secondary parking lots all arround, which makes driving so much more uncomfortable (and for the greens, also increases gas consumption due to all the stops. Not to mention those that actually have to find some street place to park.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Throughout the 1980s and 90s Naperville IL, then the fastest growing suburb in the US, kept the one and only copy of its plumbing code in a locked basement room at City Hall.
How awful. If this was a serious problem, why didn’t the people of Naperville IL demand that the city make the plumbing code more accessible?
September 8th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Neither DTM or Matt has adduced any real evidence that the zoning of suburbs (no matter how ridiculous) has been a primary driver of suburban sprawl.
Well, define “primary.” But it’s difficult to argue that making any development besides suburban sprawl illegal in much of the populated parts of the country hasn’t had some sort of causal effect on the type of housing and commercial development being built over the last 6 decades and that, in the absence of such laws, the free market might have built things differently.
Mixner, I see, is attempting the bizarre semantic jiujitsu approach of declaring local regulatory laws somehow not to be government regulation at all, and instead merely the implementation of free market forces. This idea is absurd on its face, but if you really feel like reading a refutation of it, check out Jonathan Levine’s book “Zoned Out.”
September 8th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
> How awful. If this was a serious problem, why
> didn’t the people of Naperville IL demand that
> the city make the plumbing code more accessible?
Mixmaster,
Glad to see you are still on the thread! In multiple postings over 3 years, you have claimed that it is architecturally impossible to build city neighborhoods with 90% detached single family homes with back yards & garages, and walkable access to parks, shopping, and public transportation. Physically impossible to create such a layout you claim. Yet over 1 million people live in such neighborhoods in the City of Chicago alone, not to mention Boston, Portland, Philadelphia, etc. Have you finally found the time to visit such a neighborhood in real life and posted a public acknowledgment of your mistake?
Cranky
September 8th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Mixner, I see, is attempting the bizarre semantic jiujitsu approach of declaring local regulatory laws somehow not to be government regulation at all,
You’re funny. I said that the regulations are mostly local rather than central, the product of the local political process in each place. What part of that statement do you think denies that they are government regulations at all? You do realize that local government is still government, right?
September 8th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
In multiple postings over 3 years, you have claimed that it is architecturally impossible to build city neighborhoods with 90% detached single family homes with back yards & garages, and walkable access to parks, shopping, and public transportation.
No I haven’t.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
In fairness, it matters.
Sure. But his argument was that rail transit works in Europe and Japan because ‘hard to connect nodes’ are connected, not that everyone there lives next to a grocery store. Although, he does give himself an out by switching the argument mid-stream into ‘rail won’t work because everyone here doesn’t live next door to a grocery store”
September 8th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Erp. #27 was me.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I’m sure Mixner, like all libertarians, regards local rent control laws as benign reflections of local preferences, as well.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Oh, Al. You’re such an idiot.
The accusation was blase, not that they actively defend zoning. It’s easy to give lip service to something, but it’s all about priorities. I’ve never once seen a libertarian go to a tea party against zoning, but adding a rescission provision to health care reform? They go nuts over it.
It’s all about tribalism. Libertarians by and large want their neighborhoods cars-only, whites-only, and expensive. If you attack the central planning that restricts the supply of housing to the particular type their tribe likes, their instinct isn’t to think back and reevaluate their priorities, but to automatically go on the offense. Hence you, and Caplan.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Mixner, yes or no: communities have the right to regulate guns and smoking in their locality?
September 8th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
But his argument was that rail transit works in Europe and Japan because ‘hard to connect nodes’ are connected,
What exactly is the claim that rail transit “works” supposed to mean in clear empirical terms? For a variety of reasons, rail transit has a slightly larger share of urban transportation in Europe than in the United States, but that share is still tiny. The vast majority of urban travel in Europe, as in the U.S., is car travel. And virtually all of the growth is also in car travel. Rail is stagnant or declining.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Planning regulations are generally copied-and-pasted from locale to locale, with the guidance of property developers who, after all, are the experts in such things and such a boon to councilmembers’ re-election campaigns, I mean, the community.
But since Arizona’s Next Top Sociopath has unmasked himself after a long, blessed absence, I’ll leave him to bullshit this thread into triple figures.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
From “sexy artificial trees” it is a slippery slope to “man on dogwood.”
September 8th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
pseudonumous in nc is a dangerous psychopath.
Planning regulations are generally copied-and-pasted from locale to locale
How do you know? Oh, that’s right, you don’t. You’re just making things up again.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Bullshit, Al. I read the Hit & Run blog at Reason Online every single day from the summer of 2001 through December 2009. There has never been a single piece in that magazine on on that blog denouncing suburban sprawl zoning – that is, minimum lot sizes, single-family-only zoning, residential-only zoning, parking minimums, setbacks, nothing. Not a single word denouncing those regulations, or acknowledging that the suburban-sprawl system is a creation of government policy, largely government restrictions on land use.
On the other hand, they frequently ran pieces denouncing those who disapproved of sprawl zoning. Because they’re that made-up word, “statists,” you see. They don’t advocate for repealing zoning in its entirety, but rather, they have specific criticisms that they wish to address for deregulation – and libertarians are against that, apparently.
I guess “principled opponent of zoning” means “someone who doesn’t ever actually object to zoning, but uses a more-libertarian-than-thou argument to knock down proposals to deregulate land development that don’t kiss the ring of sprawl development.”
It’s no accident that the novel vacation resort Howard Roarke designs in The Fountainhead is almost exactly like a cookie-cutter sprawl-era subdivision. Libertarians think that the auto-dependent, exclusionary sprawl lifestyle is maximally “individualistic,” so even when they admit after some arm twisting that they oppose the regulations necessary for its existence, they just won’t ever consider addressing that problem to be a priority.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
What exactly is the claim that rail transit “works” supposed to mean in clear empirical terms?
Apparently, to Tyler Cowan, it means that for some level of ‘convenience’ that’s acceptably high for him, rail would work if he could use it to conveniently shop for groceries and use the public library. Although, there may be additional criteria that must be met that he has not specified. Since I’m not, you know, Tyler Cowan, I really can’t answer for you what Tyler Cowan thinks.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
It’s called “public choice theory.” The restrictions and complexities of building codes don’t have negative effects on the people who currently own homes in a suburb. They might actually benefit from higher home values based on the artificially-constricted supply, and the fact that lower-cost homes can’t be built in their neighborhoods.
It’s the people who won’t be able to move into town because of these laws – because the homes that do get built are more expensive and fewer in number – upon whom the harm falls, but they don’t get to vote on the building codes in the towns they aren’t allowed to live in.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Here’s the weird part: even the ones who don’t, who move to big cities because they like urban lifestyles and cultural diversity, line up with the snob-zoners. It’s primarily about left-right tribalism, more than economic or racial tribalism, and of course, the almighty dollar. The sprawl lobby and oil lobby fund a lot of libertarian organizations.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Mixner, I was a practicing planner for almost eight years, and have a master’s degree in the field. The statement “zoning codes are copied from locale to locale” is absolutely true – and not only true, but widely known among, well, anybody with even the most rudimentary knowledge of the subject.
In the 1920s, the Hoover Commerce Department produced a document called the Standard Zoning Enabling Act, which was often copied word-for-word. It formed the basis for most of the suburban zoning in America. Once again, this is pretty much universally known not just within the field, but by anyone who has made even the slightest effort to understand it.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Since I’m not, you know, Tyler Cowan, I really can’t answer for you what Tyler Cowan thinks.
I didn’t, you know, ask you. I asked Steve K, who does seem to think he knows what Tyler Cowan thinks.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
joe from lowell
It’s the people who won’t be able to move into town because of these laws – because the homes that do get built are more expensive and fewer in number – upon whom the harm falls, but they don’t get to vote on the building codes in the towns they aren’t allowed to live in.
The complaint was that the plumbing codes in question were hard to access, not that they made housing more expensive or fewer in number. And what do you mean by “more expensive” and “fewer in number,” anyway? More expensive than what? “Fewer in number” than what?
Mixner, I was a practicing planner for almost eight years, and have a master’s degree in the field.
Of course you were. And I have a Nobel Prize.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Joe from Lowell says:
“I read the Hit & Run blog at Reason Online every single day from the summer of 2001 through December 2009. There has never been a single piece in that magazine on on that blog denouncing suburban sprawl zoning – that is, minimum lot sizes, single-family-only zoning, residential-only zoning, parking minimums, setbacks, nothing. Not a single word denouncing those regulations, or acknowledging that the suburban-sprawl system is a creation of government policy, largely government restrictions on land use.”
Read closer. You might see something like this, which is proposed as a “real solution” to congestion:
“Market pricing for parking. On 99 percent of our trips we park for free, thanks largely to the minimum parking requirements embedded in our zoning codes. Eliminating those requirements would allow market forces to reflect the true cost of parking. Instead of adhering to arbitrary regulations that often order more spaces than necessary, developers would have greater flexibility to build only the number of spaces that is needed. Workplaces would be more likely to adopt parking cash-out programs, which give employees who do not drive to work a share of the money that otherwise would have gone toward parking costs. Employees would be more likely to work from home. Market pricing for parking would reduce traffic too. If drivers had to pay the full cost of parking, they might be less inclined to take certain trips, thus putting a dent in congestion. More important, when parking is scarce but free (or underpriced), drivers have an incentive to keep the spots as long as possible. When it is scarce but costs money, drivers are less likely to dally. One additional result: Other drivers have less need to circle around and around, hoping eventually to spot an empty space.”
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119192.html
It’s in a piece that takes some shots at mass transit. But clearly, at least these libertarians are willing to complain about the impact of parking minimums and other regulations.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
joe from lowell,
In the 1920s, the Hoover Commerce Department produced a document called the Standard Zoning Enabling Act, which was often copied word-for-word. Once again, this is pretty much universally known not just within the field, but by anyone who has made even the slightest effort to understand it.
The Standard Zoning Enabling Act is, as the name suggests, enabling legislation for zoning. It doesn’t specify the detailed content of planning regulations. That is done on a case-by-case basis, and there is a great deal of variation in the details.
This is pretty much universally known not just within the field, but by anyone who has made even the slightest effort to understand it.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
People move to the suburbs mainly for the schools. I don’t understand why this is rarely mentioned in these discussions.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
The complaint was that the plumbing codes in question were hard to access, not that they made housing more expensive or fewer in number. And what do you mean by “more expensive” and “fewer in number,” anyway? More expensive than what? “Fewer in number” than what?
Jesus. Fake ignorance of the law of supply and demand. Matt, if you are really reading comments, then please return the troll to the regions of outer darkness.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Sam M,
Did you make a mistake in your cut and paste attempt? Because you told me to “read harder” to find what Reason had to say about the zoning that caused suburban sprawl, and then provided a quote from a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with zoning regulation as a cause of sprawl.
But that’s an interesting find – they’re willing to criticize parking minimums’ effect on commuting patterns, but not a word about its effect on land use patterns. In other words, even when the subject is right up their ally, they don’t touch it.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Bullshit, Al. I read the Hit & Run blog at Reason Online every single day from the summer of 2001 through December 2009.
I want your time machine, joe. Can it go past December 2009?
Anyway, I kind of like the absurdity of this post: “Maryland is expected to see substantial job growth in the next few years, which apparently is bad news. As The Washington Times explains, more people will create a conflict between local “adequate public facilities ordinances,” which discourage development in “areas where schools are crowded or sewage-treatment systems are at capacity,” and the state’s “smart growth” policy, which aims to prevent sprawl by discouraging development everywhere else.”
September 8th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
You made several argument to the effect of “If the people in the town don’t like those laws, they’d have changed them.” This was one of them. I merely pointed out the public-choice problem with your argument.
I mean that the housing stock in a sprawling suburb is more expensive than it otherwise would be, if there were not a lot of regulations forbidding the construction of any housing type besides the most expensive style (the detached single-family home on a large lot). I mean that the housing stock in a sprawling suburb consists of fewer units than it would if housing styles that make more efficient use of land (small lot SFHs, attached single family homes, apartment houses, apartment buildings, apartments over storefronts, townhouse projects that allow more than 4-6 units per acre) were allowed to be constructed. This restriction on supply, btw, feeds back into higher prices, in a well-known pattern.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Mixner has now devolved to simply calling people who present inconvenient facts to him liars. Very nice!
So government planning must come from the federal government to be considered “central”? What about state government? Or a multi-government metropolitan planning commission? What about a really big county government? It is important to have clear definitions in a discussion so let us have yours please?
It would be interesting to have this debate with someone who wasn’t acting like a spoiled 3-year-old.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
You are welcome to peruse the credits and acknowledgment pages of the Comprehensive Master Plans of the cities of Lowell and Fitchburg, Massachusetts, or visit the Town of Westford and ask to see the staff reports I wrote up for ZBA cases, Mixner.
Oh, ZBA stands for Zoning Board of Appeals. You might not be familiar with the term.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Joe now says:
“Did you make a mistake in your cut and paste attempt? Because you told me to ‘read harder’ to find what Reason had to say about the zoning that caused suburban sprawl, and then provided a quote from a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with zoning regulation as a cause of sprawl.”
Uh, no. What you said was this:
“There has never been a single piece in that magazine on on that blog denouncing suburban sprawl zoning – that is, minimum lot sizes, single-family-only zoning, residential-only zoning, parking minimums, setbacks, nothing.”
I hate to have to diagram sentences, but your claim came with regard to what you call “suburban sprawl zoning.” THen you followed with explanatory clause: “that is, minimum size lots… parking minimums… nothing.”
Parking minimums being what you offers as one example of “suburban sprawl zoning.”
But Reason has, in fact, denounced parking minimums as inefficient in the time frame in which you clame it has not denounced “suburban sprawl zoning.”
September 8th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Jesus, look it up. Stop guessing what you think it means, because anyone reading this thread who has actually studied or worked in the field knows you are wrong.
The SZEA included model zoning codes, which were frequently adopted wholesale by communities, and continued to serve (either directly, or through several generations of reiterations) and the model for local zoning codes across America.
No, it is not. It made you feel good to write that, since you’ve adopted the lazy habit of repeating the put-downs to which you are subject, but your statement is not factually true. Neither of your statements are factually true. You are incorrect to say that the SZEA did not include model zoning which served as the template for most suburban zoning codes, and you are incorrect to say that people familiar with the planning field agree with you.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Fake ignorance of the law of supply and demand.
Gibberish. What about the law of supply and demand? Matt, please send roac to the outer darkness for the sin of stupidity.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I don’t think catching me in a typo actually does much to rebut the fact that I just planted your argument about 8 feet below sea level, Al.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I’m beginning to suspect someone is just imitating the old Mixner.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Sam M,
I’m sorry you didn’t understand what I wrote the first time, and I’m glad that you were eventually able to wrap your brain around it.
But, no, your lack of comprehension does not mean my argument has changed on bit from the first time I made it.
Reason has never, not even once, denounced zoning for contributing to suburban sprawl. Even when they register a complaint about an aspect of zoning that is often pointed to for contributing to sprawl, they neglect to raise that issue.
It was a true statement the first time I made it; it was a true statement the second time I made it; and it’s a true statement now, when I’m repeating it for a third time.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Restricting supply raises prices. Suburban sprawl zoning restricts supply.
In many cases, these restrictions were put in place explicitly for the purpose of “protecting property values.”
September 8th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I didn’t, you know, ask you. I asked Steve K, who does seem to think he knows what Tyler Cowan thinks.
I’m Steve K., as I said (less than a minute later) in the post immediately after my ‘Steve K.’ post (cf #27 & #28). And no, I don’t know what Tyler Cowen’s definition of a acceptably convenient rail transit system is. He does state that such a system needs to have ‘well-connected nodes’, which he doesn’t define, except to imply that a grocery store and a metro stop each a block away from your office doesn’t qualify.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
You made several argument to the effect of “If the people in the town don’t like those laws, they’d have changed them.” This was one of them. I merely pointed out the public-choice problem with your argument.
No, you didn’t point out any problem with my argument. You claimed that the plumbing code in question made housing more expensive or fewer in number. What do you mean by “more expensive” and “fewer in number?” More expensive than what? “Fewer in number” than what? And how do you know it had this effect?
I mean that the housing stock in a sprawling suburb is more expensive than it otherwise would be, if there were not a lot of regulations forbidding the construction of any housing type besides the most expensive style (the detached single-family home on a large lot).
Try to follow. We’re not talking about “regulations forbidding the construction of any housing type besides the most expensive style.” We’re talking about the alleged plumbing code in 1980s and 90s Naperville IL. You claimed that this plumbing code made housing more expensive or fewer in number. What do you mean by “more expensive” and “fewer in number?” More expensive than what? “Fewer in number” than what? And how do you know it had this effect?
September 8th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Here, scroll down to the bottom.
I cannot believe that it’s been over a decade since we finished Fitchburg’s master plan. Pretty much every planning document with a 20-year timeframe that was produced in the late 90s was called “Vision2020″ or “2020 Vision.” Just too good to pass up.
So, what we now know is that, yes, I was a planner, and yes, I’m really old.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Jesus, look it up. Stop guessing what you think it means,
Jesus, Mary and Joseph. You look it up. Stop guessing what you think it means.
The SZEA included model zoning codes
As I said, the SZEA does not specify the detailed content of planning regulations. That is done on a case-by-case basis, and there is a great deal of variation in the details.
This is pretty much universally known not just within the field, but by anyone who has made even the slightest effort to understand it.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Shrug. You made an argument, several times now, about local building and zoning codes not being changed by the people who live under them. I pointed out that there is a large public-choice-theory problem with your argument.
I guess you just don’t have a response, so you’re playing dumb. If that’s what you want to do, you do right ahead. I don’t imagine anyone who’s reading through the thread, saw your “the locals support it” arguments, and saw my response, is going to be too terribly impressed by your feigned ignorance, but that’s up to you. I’ve made my point, others can see it, and your insistence that I have not rebutted you is what it is.
Actually, you’ve been talking about that all thread, and on several previous threads. Here’s you, making exactly the point about locals not changing development codes:
Here’s you, making that same argument, but in regards to the secret plumbing code in Naperville:
So there you are, twice, making precisely the argument I rebutted; that the approval for development-restricting activity by local governments is not a problem, because it reflects the desires of the local residents.
Once again, I’ll point out that this argument suffers from a rather serious public-choice problem: the people effected by the political decision are not the same as the people who get to make it.
And once again, I’ll point out that, rather than attempting to refute what I wrote, you’re dodging my argument. I guess you just don’t have a response.
Yes, making it more difficult to construct a house reduces the number of houses being constructed, which (through a rather well-understood process) raises prices. Whether this is done by restricting where houses can be put, or making the permitting process more difficult, the effect of reducing housing construction is to drive up prices.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Restricting supply raises prices.
How do you know the plumbing code in 1980s and 90s Naperville IL restricted supply and raised prices? Compared to what?
September 8th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
You can keep telling me that the SZEA did not include model zoning regs, Mixner. You can keep telling me that it did not serve as a model for local zoning. You can keep telling me that I don’t know what the SZEA was, and what it included, and how it worked.
But, you see, I both read and studied the subject when I got my master’s degree in the field. You are incorrect on all of these counts.
You can repeat back what I just wrote, insert the word “not” where you feel it is appropriate, and hope that anyone reading this will find you more credible than an actual, experienced, educated urban planner, if you wish.
Good luck with that.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Not the plumbing code. That act of keeping it unavailable to the public. I know that making the permitting process harder raises home prices, because this fact has been amply demonstrated by everyone from the Cato Institute to Urban Land Institute to the National Association of Homebuilders to the individual developers I came into contact with over the course of my planning career.
Compared to a regulatory process that imposes fewer burdens on developers.
BTW, the fact that you are running away from your argument about development codes restricting supply and raising prices, by trying to reduce the issue to Naperville’s plumbing code in isolation, is rather glaring.
Do you have a rebuttal to my point about public-choice theory and the consent of a town’s residents, or don’t you? I think you don’t, so you’re throwing up a lot of chaff.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Just to reassure Joe that other people get this: He didn’t say the content of the plumbing code restricted supply. He said Napierville’s refusal to tell builders what the plumbing code said restricted supply.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Nothing wrong with sprawl, better schools, quieter, less busy streets, bigger yards, better barbecue, garage, roomier homes. Seems pretty obvious why it is so popular.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I’m now going to go watch my daughter and her friends ride their bikes in the street. I’ll be back after dinner.
Mixner will either have thought up a response to my public-choice-theory-based rebuttal of his “local consent” argument, or he will have thrown out a great deal of chaff.
I suspect the latter.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
You made an argument, several times now, about local building and zoning codes not being changed by the people who live under them. I pointed out that there is a large public-choice-theory problem with your argument.
No, you didn’t. Merely uttering the words “public choice theory” does not describe a “problem” with an argument, let alone whatever argument of mine you are referring to here.
Actually, you’ve been talking about that all thread, and on several previous threads.
The statement you are referring to refers specifically and exclusively to the alleged plumbing codes in Naperville IL in the 1980s and 1990s. You even quoted that statement prior to your response. Now you’re pretending the statement referred to other laws. It’s just more of your usual bait-and-switch.
You claimed that this plumbing code made housing more expensive or fewer in number. What do you mean by “more expensive” and “fewer in number?” More expensive than what? “Fewer in number” than what? And how do you know it had this effect?
September 8th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Joe from Lowell,
You ass. If you just ignore him, he goes away. He only came back here because some idiot posted his name yesterday, and you know he googles that.
Don’t feed the trolls!
September 8th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Once again, I’ll point out that this argument suffers from a rather serious public-choice problem: the people effected by the political decision are not the same as the people who get to make it.
So what? Every political decision has some effect on people who do not get to make it. What solution to this alleged “serious problem” do you propose?
You can keep telling me that the SZEA did not include model zoning regs, Mixner.
I’m telling you that the SZEA does not specify the detailed content of planning regulations. That is done on a case-by-case basis, and there is a great deal of variation in the details.
This is pretty much universally known not just within the field, but by anyone who has made even the slightest effort to understand it.
Not the plumbing code. That act of keeping it unavailable to the public.
Cranky didn’t say it was unavailable to the public. If you’re claiming it was, substantiate your claim.
I know that making the permitting process harder raises home prices,
How do you know that? And how do you know that the laws controlling access to the plumbing code in Naperville in the 1980s and 90s made the permitting process harder? Harder than what?
September 8th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
He said Napierville’s refusal to tell builders what the plumbing code said restricted supply.
In explicit reference to the alleged plumbing codes, he said that the “restrictions and complexities of building codes” restrict supply.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I’m relieved that, in the end, Tyler Cohen is a weak-ass apologist. This little manifesto is completely inconsistent with his favorite hobby of extolling the virtues of suburbs as the consequences of a free market. There is nothing free about that market. To be Tyler Cohen today requires a profound inability to grasp magnitudes: the harm and social cost inflicted by the massive commitment to suburban life completely eclipses the sum of the market-denominated private gains from having a big house and quiet street.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Compared to a regulatory process that imposes fewer burdens on developers.
Minimizing burdens on developers does not seem to be the only factor influencing the choice of regulatory process. Do you think it should be?
September 8th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
the harm and social cost inflicted by the massive commitment to suburban life completely eclipses the sum of the market-denominated private gains from having a big house and quiet street.
Another highly implausible assertion, completely unspported by evidence or argument. Show us the cost-benefit analysis by which you reached this conclusion.
And why is the comparison you make above relevant, anyway? What about a comparison of total costs to total benefits? How does that come out? Again, show us your analysis.
September 8th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Somebody else may have pointed this out (I couldn’t handle more than the first 25-35 comments), but perhaps the commenters, and maybe Yglesias himself, should read what caplan wrote. Did he really say that land use regulation/zoning was a good thing and resulted in superior outcomes? Or did he say (1) he preferred the suburbs and (2) he’s not convinced suburbs are the result of zoning regulations, and (3) in his experience, people that want no zoning (as opposed to different zoning) are typically libertarians.
Also, for the people that take issue with number 2, although I would suspect that zoning has prevented a lot of mixed use neighborhoods from popping up, I live in a place where lots of gated communities with nothing but single family homes have been built when zoning would have allowed mixed use, which makes me think that a lot of suburbs would still look substantially the same, but with developers and covenants preventing mixed use neighborhoods instead of zoning.
September 8th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Yup. Chaff. Not an argument in the bunch. Now he’s pretending not to have seen my argument. The monsters can’t get me if I put my blanket over my head!
Anyway, in addition to the SZEA and its model zoning code, the Commerce Department in the 20s also published standard subdivision regulations. Sprawl zoning, interstate highways, urban highways, urban renewal, subdivision regulations – they were all federal projects just as much as local projects. They were, in many ways, a vision imposed by central planners.
Just to give you a sense of how long-lasting and widespread the standardized federal development regulations have become, look at cul-de-sac widths. Most communities’ subdivision regulations require a diameter for a cul-de-sac sufficient to allow a fire truck to make the turn in one swing. The reason for this is that the reverse gear on fire trucks was also used to pump water, so they didn’t want them to have to back up to move or exit the street. Now, fire trucks haven’t been built that way since the 30s, but the standard lives on in subdivision regulations all across America.
September 8th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Now he’s pretending not to have seen my argument.
You’ll have to actually make an argument before I can see it. Uttering the words “public choice theory” is not an argument.
Anyway, in addition to the SZEA and its model zoning code
The SZEA does not specify the detailed content of planning regulations. That is done on a case-by-case basis, and there is a great deal of variation in the details.
This is pretty much universally known not just within the field, but by anyone who has made even the slightest effort to understand it.
September 8th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Matt’s fondness for 90s pop punk continues to mystify me.
He seems like such a square.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
> You ass. If you just ignore him, he goes
> away. He only came back here because some
> idiot posted his name yesterday, and you
> know he googles that.
Hey, at least Mixmaster finally admitted that the north side of Chicago, comprising over 1 million people, actually exists. That’s a small start toward his acknowledging his problem and getting treatment – but it is a start!
And although I strongly suspect that the Mixmaster persona is part of a paid Radical Right counterblogging effort, I will say this: there are many, many people out there, some in positions of great authority and others just ordinary voters, who believe that the arguments that Mixmaster advances for the superiority of exurbia are not only correct but the only valid way to view the situation. So I think it is actually quite valuable for both we and MY (to the extent that he dirties himself in the comment section) to hear what he has to say. Of course, Mixmaster wouldn’t last 3 minutes in a debate with Duncan Black, but that’s another story.
Cranky
September 8th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Joe,
So do you consider parking minimums an example of suburban sprwal zoning or not? The sentence you initially wrote offers parking minimums as an example of suburban sprawl zoning.
You then stated that Reason had never written a work denouncing suburban sprawl zoning.
One way to examine that claim, obviously, would be to go through the archives to see if anyone at Reason had ever, in fact, denounced any of the examples of suburban sprawl zoning that you offered.
After about three seconds of searching… I provided a link to a story in Reason that… denounces parking minimums. Which you identified as an example of suburban sprawl zoning.
If, on the other hand, you do not consider parking minimims an example of suburban sprawl zoning, I can only suggest you construct your sentences more clearly.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Mixner’s reappearance coincides with his release from involuntary psychiatric confinement.
This is pretty much universally known not just within the field, but by anyone who has made even the slightest effort to understand it.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
This is pretty much universally known not just within the field, but by anyone who has made even the slightest effort to understand it.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Yglesias correctly notes that the pattern of suburban development and sprawl has been largely the result of GOVERNMENT PLANNING. Who subsidizes and builds the roads out to the exurbs? Whose drug war policies and public schools make the inner cities such hell-holes that everyone wants the government to help move them 50 miles away? Whose policies require giant lots for homes (probably to keep out hated minorities under the guise of “smart growth”)? Whose monetary dilution policies tended to make housing appear to be a safe (and money making) store of value in the face of purposeful diluted purchasing power?
And what the hell do such misguided GOVERNMENT POLICIES have to do with Libertarianism? Absolutely nothing.
Just more “progressive” fraud in terminology use. Like conflating monetarism with “the free market”.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
although I would suspect that zoning has prevented a lot of mixed use neighborhoods from popping up, I live in a place where lots of gated communities with nothing but single family homes have been built when zoning would have allowed mixed use, which makes me think that a lot of suburbs would still look substantially the same
I think it is almost surely the case that at least some master-planned, residential-only, large-lot neighborhoods would have been developed without the relevant regulations and subsidies stacking the deck in their favor. So the better version of this argument is more just that the mix of developments has been skewed by these policies.
That said, keep in mind that zoning is only part of the picture, and we would also have to look at things like subsidies for roads and utilities, parking policies, and so forth.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
That said, keep in mind that zoning is only part of the picture, and we would also have to look at things like subsidies for roads and utilities, parking policies, and so forth.
And subsidies for mass transit, and central city congestion subsidies, and restrictions on suburban growth, and so on.
If you think you can make a serious case that the totality of laws and regulations in the United States favors lower-density, car-oriented development over higher-density, transit-oriented development then do so.
Even if you could do that, and we both know you can’t, you’re still left with the inconvenient truth that our laws are the result of the democratic process. They reflect the will of the people. If our laws tend to favor cars over transit, and low density over high density, it’s because that’s what people want. You need to come to terms with that.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
This is one of the more insightful posts I’ve read here. I’d like to see you expand on this line of thought.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Mixner:
Original Post:
Congratulations, Mixner. Your post at 72 is the stupidest thing I’ve read all year.
(Feel free to copy and paste that last paragraph into a post and substitute my name for yours. You’ve earned it.)
September 9th, 2009 at 2:12 am
scythia, you’re an utter moron. But we knew that. Simply asserting that a proposition has been demonstrated to be true does not, in fact, demonstrate that it is true. “I know the moon is made of cheese because this fact has been amply demonstrated by scythia.”
Try again.
September 9th, 2009 at 2:37 am
Mixner, you’re an utter moron. But we knew that. Simply asserting that a proposition has been demonstrated to be true does not, in fact, demonstrate that it is true. “I know the moon is made of cheese because this fact has been amply demonstrated by Mixner.”
Try again.
September 9th, 2009 at 2:42 am
joe from lowell, you’re an utter moron. But we knew that. Simply asserting that a proposition has been demonstrated to be true does not, in fact, demonstrate that it is true. “I know the moon is made of cheese because this fact has been amply demonstrated by joe from lowell.”
Try again.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:49 am
[...] suburbia the real by-product of government regulation? (Yglesias, Ryan [...]
September 9th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Congratulations, Mixner. Your post at 72 is the stupidest thing I’ve read all year.
And this is in a thread where ever post from Mixner was the stupidest thing we’ve read all year, until the next thing he posted. The added hilarity of confidently asserting that he knew more about zoning laws than a professional planner was particularly impressive, too. It really does out him as a creepy, borderline sociopathic guy, impervious to reason, asserting what he knows are falsehoods as a means of asserting dominance. It doesn’t quite work when intelligence and knowledge are the currency of the land, though, as it is here.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Wait, Mixner the libertarian moron troll is now astounded by the idea that the permit process restricts the supply of housing? He no longer considers the Cato Institute a credible source? He now believes that since government laws are passed by elected politicians, anything the government does necessarily reflects the will of the people and therefore shouldn’t be questioned? Amazing.
Another vote for 72 as the stupidest comment of the year.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
I don’t have any idea what happened in Naperville, IL (clearly a major metropolis) in the ’80s and ’90s. But: “At this time, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the IBC.” (Wikipedia article entitled “International Building Code”.) The IBC includes the building, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, green and fire codes.
So a plumber today knows that the same code is in use everywhere in the united states. (Local departures from the IBC are permitted only for unusual geographic or topographic reasons, such as burying outdoor plumbing less deep in areas subject to permafrost.) So do general contractors – they do not run the risk of having to learn new rules and standards for each city in which they do business. Anyone can purchase a hard copy (or download) of the IBC from its publisher, the International Code Council.
Building codes, however, have little to do with the issue of master planning of communities. Setbacks, height limits, on-site parking requirements, density and intensity of development are all standard elements of a Euclidean zoning ordinance, ruled a perfectly valid exercise of the “police power” by the US Supreme Court in 1926 in its opinion in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty.