tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3300947294999806492.post8907507164082116289..comments2023-11-22T05:26:44.399-05:00Comments on Crossing the Lines: Why Land Use Zoning Is a ProblemSteve Stofkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825368520377993845noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3300947294999806492.post-9188925864095774552011-11-01T15:26:54.382-04:002011-11-01T15:26:54.382-04:00*Correction: It very much is, and it’s hard to dis...*Correction: It very much is, and it’s hard to disagree with your statement: “To put it another way, land use zoning is an attempt to manipulate the market--and market manipulation has some rather nasty unintended consequences.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3300947294999806492.post-81262137904369301692011-11-01T12:51:37.926-04:002011-11-01T12:51:37.926-04:00Steve – Richard Epstein came out with a book a cou...Steve – Richard Epstein came out with a book a couple years ago on this topic (<i>Supreme Neglect: How to Revive Constitutional Protection For Private Property</i>), although he, like some other Libertarians, tends to be obsessed with a mere handful of instances of alleged eminent domain abuse at the expense of more mundane, but ubiquitous, regulations such as use-based zoning and parking regulations.Charlie Gardnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317335121565650040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3300947294999806492.post-18818175695148470772011-10-31T20:41:40.894-04:002011-10-31T20:41:40.894-04:00Steve –
Nathaniel here. Thought I'd clarify....Steve – <br /><br />Nathaniel here. Thought I'd clarify. I probably hastily put this post together and didn’t notice it was so off (nor did anyone else for that matter). I didn’t intend to imply that zoning wasn’t part of the problem. It very much is, and it’s hard not to disagree with your statement: “To put it another way, land use zoning is an attempt to manipulate the market--and market manipulation has some rather nasty unintended consequences.”<br /><br />I’ll make sure to go back and tweak a few sentences in that post. Thanks for pointing that out. Happy Halloween.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3300947294999806492.post-34881087239473830332011-10-30T22:41:02.536-04:002011-10-30T22:41:02.536-04:00Indeed...which is why we need to develop a legal a...Indeed...which is why we need to develop a legal argument of extraordinary power. Framing a question--and a project--isn't necessarily the same as solving it.<br /><br />I am no legal scholar, though, so I can only guess what such an argument would entail.<br /><br />The other issue with Nate's argument is that <i>his</i> conclusion has anti-market undertones (i.e. that it wishes to subvert supply-and-demand to pursue bureaucratic structuring). Now I am no believer in a "free" market as such, but I do agree with Hayek that government and capital have equal access to information.<br /><br />Additionally, it can be observed neither necessarily have consistent agendas. Indeed, U.S. agenda (policy) can even be blatantly self-contradictory--e.g. promoting healthy eating while at the same time subsidizing corn farmers. Capital can be likewise--but due to the pseudo-monolithic nature of government the expectations for consistent policy are that much greater.Steve Stofkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14825368520377993845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3300947294999806492.post-83024109267088227982011-10-30T20:07:35.024-04:002011-10-30T20:07:35.024-04:00Just about every legal argument in the big book of...Just about every legal argument in the big book of constitutional law has been thrown at the basis of zoning ordinances, and none have succeeded. SCOTUS has even given its stamp of approval to blatantly exclusionary measures more restrictive than the one Nathaniel mentions (see <i>Belle Terre v. Boraas</i>). Politicians have a blank check to indulge the worst impulses of their constituents. <br /><br />One underlying issue is that in the <i>Euclid</i> decision, it was held that the state could selectively strip an owner of certain of the "sticks," i.e. rights, in the bundle of ownership without being found to have taken the owner's property. This is akin to saying that it's only robbery if, during a stick-up, I take all the money in your wallet; if I leave you few bucks, no harm done (that is actually the Supreme Court's holding, implicit in the majority opinion but explicitly mentioned in the dissent, in <i>Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission</i>).<br /><br />There is also a presumption that the state's belief that it can employ use-based regulation to create positive outcomes is "rational," the test for zoning laws being whether they have a "rational basis." But that is more problematic to challenge. The courts examine the benefits of a particular law within a city itself; thus, if a city can exclude, by law, certain undesired uses, even though that makes the region as a whole worse off in certain ways, it will be found to be permissible so long as the city can explain how it creates benefits for that particular city. Those are essentially the facts, and the outcome, of <i>Euclid</i>.Charlie Gardnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317335121565650040noreply@blogger.com