What is the Austrian view on residential zoning laws?
To give an example, near where I live the local government has ruled that certain suburbs be rezoned so that buildings up to five stories may be built. Such buildings would be completely out of character since most of the existing homes are detached on large-ish blocks of land with big lawns and leafy streets, etc. In other words, typical middle to upper middle class suburbia. Residents are complaining that large apartment blocks will devalue the area, increase noise and traffic, reduce privacy (apartment residents can overlook their backyards), etc. The usual complaints.
The govt says that, due to population growth, they need to allow for higher density living.
ITGF: What is the Austrian view on residential zoning laws?
They are bad.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Here’s my opinion as a real estate professional:
Under the common law concept of a bundle of rights, land is the earth and the earth’s atmosphere. A parcel of land is defined by geographic boundaries on the surface of the earth. These geographic boundaries extend down to the core of the earth and up to the limits of the atmosphere. The owner of these surface geographic boundaries has all of the rights to this volume of earth and air (we’ll leave aside how these rights are acquired for now).
This rights concept is alodial title. It is “freehold property held in absolute independence and not subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgement of superior rights” (The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal). At some point in the past, the governments took the rights of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat for virtually all land in the U.S., leaving property owners with, at most, a fee simple interest. Police power is “The right of government through which property is regulated to protect public safety, health, morals, and general welfare” (ibid.) Prior to the first zoning laws in 1916, this was the state of land ownership. Essentially, as long as you paid taxes and didn’t jeopardize the health and safety of someone else, you had unlimited rights to your land.
In the 1926 U.S. Supreme Court of Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., the ruling was that zoning was a form of police power. Given this history, it is my opinion that when someone purchases a property, they are purchasing all of the rights associated with that property at the time of purchase. If additional zoning restrictions are imposed on the property after the purchase, they constitute a taking and the property owner is entitled to “just compensation” under the U.S. Constitution.
"Fine, they don't work as intended."
"-Brodie (sounds like bad to me)"
Sounds like you're probably a libertarian then.
Two of my friends and I are preparing for a run for city council, and I have to tell you reading through this zoning info is tiring.
But it seems to be essential, because that's one of the main thing a city does.
One thing that's been useful to me is the work of Andres Duany:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwd4Lq0Xvgc
His most influential work seems to be to me on the artistic side, how to create a sense of unity and place within a neighborhood.
He's also an advocate (or was) of 'smart growth,' and what I've seen so far that doesn't seem to be a great idea.
Randal O'Toole makes some really convincing arguments against it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4xkpETsbi0
His presentation starts about 25 min in.
I'm trying to consider something that loosens the development restrictions (and trust me there are a lot of them), while trying to incorporate Duany's idea of New Urbanism.
I think you make an interesting point, because if you suddenly remove the strictures of zoning you could wind up with a situation like you describe where something completely anomolous and possibly damaging to people's property values could be constructed. So, I think there should be a kind of drastic loosening, while still taking a kind of neighborhood unity into place. (I'm not saying that I think zoning is a good idea in a new place. The problems caused in these neighborhoods were caused by zoning, not the free market.)
I'm also going to pick up 'Zoned Out' from the library today, but if anyone knows of good resources on zoning, such as the economic costs caused by them, please let me know.
Conza88: "Fine, they don't work as intended." "-Brodie (sounds like bad to me)" Sounds like you're probably a libertarian then.
Only libertarians think when things don't work as intended that it is bad?
Stranger:Firstly, I don't think morality has anything to do with right or justice, so don't bother pushing me on it.
Out of curiosity, what do you think morality has to do with?
Stranger:Secondly, the reason it is hard to distinguish cities and states from land is that, as I am trying to point out, it is hard to distinguish land from anything. Land is too abstract a notion to be appropriated. A farm is something tangible, with boundaries and people acting upon it. Even a ranch has some natural limits, even though they tend to exist only a map. But land qua land makes no sense to me other than as taxonomy. So the question remains, how can we homestead "land"? Well, it is easy to homestead a farm - just build one. The same thing is true for a city, unless someone builds streets, there can't be houses. (How did people get there?) But appropriating something more "natural", like an oil field, is a point of contention amongst libertarians, and I'm finding out that it is deeply connected to the appropriation of intellectual property. I'm writing something on this subject at the moment. Will post it soon.
So the question remains, how can we homestead "land"? Well, it is easy to homestead a farm - just build one. The same thing is true for a city, unless someone builds streets, there can't be houses. (How did people get there?) But appropriating something more "natural", like an oil field, is a point of contention amongst libertarians, and I'm finding out that it is deeply connected to the appropriation of intellectual property. I'm writing something on this subject at the moment. Will post it soon.
When you write of building a farm, surely you mean more than just building the house and barn. I don't see the tilling and planting of the fields as a construction activity, but that's just me.
It seems to me that, in order to build a farm, the land that will make it up has to already exist. And since it already exists, it must be already owned before anything can be (legitimately) done with it. Likewise for building a city (so to speak) -- the land that it's built on has to exist and be owned first. Therefore it seems that land is indeed ownable.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Good character.
When you write of building a farm, surely you mean more than just building the house and barn. I don't see the tilling and planting of the fields as a construction activity, but that's just me. It seems to me that, in order to build a farm, the land that will make it up has to already exist. And since it already exists, it must be already owned before anything can be (legitimately) done with it. Likewise for building a city (so to speak) -- the land that it's built on has to exist and be owned first. Therefore it seems that land is indeed ownable.
In order to build anything, matter must already exist. You cannot build a car unless iron and oil already exist. Farms are no different. It just happens that a farm stays where you built it.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: Autolykos:Out of curiosity, what do you think morality has to do with? Good character.
Autolykos:Out of curiosity, what do you think morality has to do with?
I see. Does that mean, for example, that you don't consider aggression to be morally wrong? Again, I'm just wondering.
Stranger:In order to build anything, matter must already exist. You cannot build a car unless iron and oil already exist. Farms are no different. It just happens that a farm stays where you built it.
Ah, good point. So the iron and the oil must already be owned as well before a car can be (legitimately) built. It could also be said that owning a car also means owning the iron, oil, etc. that compose it. Likewise, owning a farm also means owning the land that it's been built on.
I certainly don't associate with aggressive people. I do the same for drug abusers, pornographers and gamblers, but that doesn't mean there is anything unjust about what they do.
Let's phrase this problem another way. How are iron and oil not considered land?
Stranger:I certainly don't associate with aggressive people. I do the same for drug abusers, pornographers and gamblers, but that doesn't mean there is anything unjust about what they do.
I understand, but unfortunately I don't think that answers my question -- at least not directly. Can you please provide a direct answer?
Stranger:Let's phrase this problem another way. How are iron and oil not considered land?
"Land" is presumably defined differently from "iron" and "oil". I could just as easily ask how is iron not considered oil and vice-versa.
I don't think we're going to understand one another. I don't know what more you are asking of me.
Stranger:I don't think we're going to understand one another. I don't know what more you are asking of me.
Why not? I'm honestly trying to understand you.
Generally only libertarians understand the divide between political philosophy and the other social sciences (economics), obviously the natural sciences too.
Since the Austrian Econ part was openly stated in a value free manner, i.e qua Austrian, then another statement non qua Austrian... it's fairly safe to assume they're probably a libertarian... as nearly every Austrian Economist is - due largely to methodological individualism.
Conza88:Generally only libertarians understand the divide between political philosophy and the other social sciences (economics), obviously the natural sciences too. Since the Austrian Econ part was openly stated in a value free manner, i.e qua Austrian, then another statement non qua Austrian... it's fairly safe to assume they're probably a libertarian... as nearly every Austrian Economist is - due largely to methodological individualism. I'm sorry but I find this to be cryptic. Can you explain what you mean and who you're talking about? The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 20
I'm sorry but I find this to be cryptic. Can you explain what you mean and who you're talking about?
If you press "replied on" it takes you to the post it was a response too. You can follow the exchange that way.
Here's an article about some of the costs of zoning:
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001841-new-index-estimates-new-house-cost-impact-land-regulation