Zoning As Theft
Published by Yazad Jal March 22nd, 2006 in Environment, RegulationThe Mises Institute has a thought provoking article on zoning, comparing it to theft.
Zoning uses all the standard interventionist lines of thought, most notably the concepts of externalities and utility. Those who advocate zoning really believe that acting man does not have the ability to create communities that are functional and prosperous. Without plans and maps drafted and drawn by the local elected elite, developers with knowledge and foresight, and a whole lot of money to gain or lose, would purposively layout communities that are sterile and functionless. Only the marginal vote-getters — those elected — and their appointed allies are omniscient enough to peer into the crystal ball and define the perfect setting for future life and leisure. The rest of us can only marvel at their visions.
I’ve been intrigued by zoning / land use planning for some time. On the face of it, sound planning does lead to more beautiful urban spaces. But the eternal question — “why should a small planning elite foster it’s zoning plans on all” — remains.
Architects and town planners, even those professing to follow libertarian principles, treat zoning laws like some sacrosanct holy cow. I remember a conversation with a young town planner at a libertarian seminar and his forceful defense of zoning. His argument boiled down to “Zoning should be a given. There is bad zoning and good zoning, and we must look at ways to highlight the good zoning and curb the bad zoning.” I wonder what he would think if I asked him to replace the word “zoning” with “dictator” in the sentence above.
Zoning laws restrict freedom by contraining the right to private property. They’re often used to keep the “undesirables” out. Why are they justified?
15 Responses to “Zoning As Theft”
- 1 Trackback on Mar 26th, 2006 at 6:47 am
- 2 Pingback on Nov 27th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
- 3 Trackback on Sep 10th, 2008 at 5:49 am
- 4 Trackback on Sep 20th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
- 5 Trackback on Sep 21st, 2008 at 2:17 pm
- 6 Trackback on Sep 21st, 2008 at 9:12 pm
- 7 Trackback on Sep 23rd, 2008 at 11:53 pm
- 8 Trackback on Sep 24th, 2008 at 1:56 am
- 9 Trackback on Jan 24th, 2009 at 5:55 am
- 10 Trackback on Jan 27th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
you still did not adress the standard externality argument. The standard moral argument for classical liberal principles are usually pretty strong. Let me know if anyone has made a case by case analysis of zoning laws in India.
We should look for solutons rather pointing fingers on others.How many real solution u have in your mind beside critising?I agree burecracy is worst in our country but I would say we as a society too lacking in opposing things which matters to us.See,US,Europe and other western countries how collectively they oppose even smaller issues.So, not only one organ ,goverment has lost its path but we too as individual too lost ,who always see short court rather fighting for justice.
Keep it up.Thought provoking analysis.
The problem with breaking zoning laws is that people expect them to be enforced.
In the absence of coercive zoning laws, there would be free market arrangement that would legitimately create zoning laws.
Two guys buy houses close to each other, the first one plants a huge tree in his garden making shadow on the other guy’s garden. The other guy is sad.
Forecasting that scenario, an intelligent investor would have bought the two houses, and sold them by witholding some rights, such as planting big shadow making trees. By doing that, he is able to make a profit, the legitimate regulation he created added value to the land.
Now assume there is zoning law, you and your neighbor buy houses, you cannot plant big trees. The zoning laws are repelled, you plant a big tree, your neighbor is unhappy.
Sure, if you look at it, repelling zoning laws is the only ethical thing to do, but to be quite honest, that is a tiny bit unfair to people who bought property. On consequential grounds, it’s not really that good. Zoning laws should be phased out.
I’ll go further in the analysis: zoning forbids people to buy certain rights, it is theft only for the person who owned the home when the laws were passed. If the laws were repelled tomorrow, you still couldn’t build a peep-show next to the school, because the State prevented you to buy the right to do. This, in itself is of course coercive, but the deed is done, you didn’t buy the right. This raises the question of who now owns that right? I think that right has been destroyed, much like property can be destroyed, waste can be destroyed etc.