There has been some discussion in academic/economic circles about the impact of zoning regulation on the housing bubble. The Anti-Planner has some comments and links to a variety of articles. Ed Glaeser has also done extensive research on this topic. The basic premise is that land use restrictions, i.e. zoning, have contributed to reduce housing supply and consequently increase house prices. This has played itself out in older communities like the Boston suburbs with considerable force over the past few decades (and inspired Karl Case's research into the subject).
I cannot disagree with the empirical evidence, where I diverge from the idealogical stances of O'toole and others is in the way that government is portrayed as the instigator of the zoning rules and de facto engineer of the price bubble and inevitable collapse. The "gummint done it" gives little acknowledgement to the fact that many local communities, possibly out of a misguided effort to preserve some sense of rural spaciousness, have enacted similar zoning regulations. The "gummint" consists of towns with engaged voters, in some cases regardless of class, seek to
protect their property values by creating lower density rules, Planning Boards, size limits, etc... that have the effect of restricting high density and diverse land uses. The "gummint" is not some idealogically motivated central planning organization, but a collection of citizens exercising their American right to govern themselves. The law of unintended consequences, Tragedy of the Commons, outcome does not signal an appocalypse. The frustrating thing about zoning trends and the built environment is that the structures have a long lifespan.
No comments:
Post a Comment