Zoning

How can it be that with two very polarized political parties in this country, and the polarized policies that go along with them, we wind up with a basic issue that is addressed so poorly by both sides? The issue I'm talking about is zoning.

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist and columnist for the New York Times, had an interesting take today:

The disaster in Houston is partly Mother Nature — natural disasters will happen sometimes whatever we did — but with a powerful assist from human action. Climate change definitely made such an event more likely; beyond that, Houston’s total lack of zoning, complete failure to limit the amount of land paved over, made it much more vulnerable than sheer geography required.

But this isn’t a simple parable where hostility to government intervention is the villain. In general, I have contempt for “both sides” arguments; given the corruption of modern American conservatism, on most issues there is a huge asymmetry between left and right. When it comes to land use policies, it really is true that both sides get it wrong.

Having no zoning, no control, can be disastrous — which is what we’re seeing in Houston now. But all too many blue states end up, in practice, letting zoning be a tool, not of good land use, but of NIMBYism, preventing the construction of new housing.

In fact, liberal (in the non-political sense) land use policy is probably the secret behind Texas economic growth: the state doesn’t offer high wages, but it does offer cheap housing even in huge metro areas. Compare real housing price evolution over the decades in Houston and San Francisco (sorry, the blue state is the red line and vice versa):

Photo

Credit

What we need is effective land-use regulation that doesn’t strangle housing construction. But how do we get there politically? No idea.

Now, as is commonly known to the reader(s) of this blog, I generally think that modern "conservative" policy ideas are, in a word, terrible. Nonetheless, the facts are what the facts are. In places like New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago, constructing new residential housing is nearly impossible. The predictable result of this is that the cost of housing skyrockets . . . you know, that old "supply and demand" thing.

Of course, I also have environmental sensitivities, so I don't think that constantly putting, for example, high rise condos on coastal Florida (which is eroding) is a good idea, if for no other reason than it destroys copious amounts of natural wetlands (natural weather buffers and water filters).

I guess it's because I think that zoning is generally both "overinclusive" and "underinclusive" that I have such an issue with people's reactions to the Wilshaw project. I support development, particularly in places that have already been developed once. I think the Wilshaw project should go through, even though I don't think that the Town of Speedway should be underwriting Wilshaw's parking garage: if Wilshaw wants a parking garage, they can build one; if the Town of Speedway wants one, we can build one. "He" who builds it, pays for it; "he" who pays for it, owns it. This is not a difficult concept.

Anyway, I thought this was interesting. I also have some thoughts about the national flood insurance program, which is currently quite deep in debt, but I'll save those for another day.