Tag Archives: U S Constitution

A Case for Freedom from Zoning

Leave a reply

As Provoans reconsider their current zoning ordinances, Oremites are doing likewise—and, although the following editorial about zoning (which local newspapers rejected publishing) was written for Orem, it applies to Provo also.

Utah’s sixth-largest city of Orem is currently torn between residents who want to zone for more single-family housing, on one figurative hand, and residents who want to zone for more high-density housing served by heavily-subsidized mass-transit, on the other figurative hand. But, amidst this controversy, one view that’s not being considered yet is abolishing zoning entirely. This is understandable because zoning has become so ubiquitous in these United States that few Americans ever question it anymore—but we should question it for reasons that I’m about to explain as best as I can…

I understand that we each have equal God-given rights, including over our person and property and children, and to either contract or defend. We exercise our rights to both property and contract together in free markets, which foster innovation that raises efficiency, effectiveness, customization, prosperity, abundance, and standards-of-living. And we exercise our rights to both contract and defense together to charter political systems that operate within their limited delegated authority to expertly assist us in defending our rights from others’ aggression, but NOT to reign over us like kings.

One way that politicians too-often violate those rights that they should help us to defend is by dictating our land-use through zoning ordinances, which assign our land to one of many zones and regulate each zone’s buildings’ form-and-function. In dictating development, zoning not only violates our God-given property rights, which is a crime, but it also reduces our politicians’ time spent on actual crimefighting, subverts them from rights-defenders into Soviet-style central economic planners, defies Constitutional due-process-of-law, and counteracts the natural self-optimization of free markets.

Zoning not only de-optimizes economies in general but, to be more specific, it imposes false “order” and/or aesthetics over people’s genuine needs, curbs competition, curtails needed development, reduces housing supplies, raises housing costs, wastes developers’ time on needless paperwork, impedes local entrepreneurship to escape poverty, disfavors new/small businesses, stifles innovation, slows progress, increases car traffic and its air-pollution, lowers overall standards-of-living, excludes “undesirables,” discourages social connectedness, contributes to homelessness, and much more.

Zoning, by rendering housing needlessly expensive, has incentivized Americans to forgo owning land in order to reside in apartments. KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov called such “delandization” the greatest threat to American liberty because Soviet subverters learned long ago that renters were psychologically likelier than landowners to embrace socialism. And this is why socialists have long sought to needlessly urbanize small-town America by zoning its residents into high-density housing alongside public mass-transit, which living-conditions also facilitate political surveillance-and-control.

So, zoning violates God-given rights, defies Constitutional law, de-optimizes economies, and fosters socialism—and, considering these reasons to oppose zoning, why would any non-socialist ever support zoning?

Some claim that zoning prevents unwise land-use and/or criminal nuisances—but this is superfluous because developers are naturally incentivized to act wisely not criminally. Others claim that zoning improves economic efficiency, residents’ health, buildings’ aesthetics, et cetera—but these claims are disproven, and these benefits are provided best via free markets. Yet others claim that zoning preserves existing neighborhood character—but this goal is best achieved by neighborly persuasion, cooperation, and perhaps restrictive covenants, not by abdicating land to corruptible politicians.

A more persuasive argument for zoning is that it keeps property values high—but this is another way to say that zoning keeps housing needlessly expensive. Zoning is partly why heavily-zoned Los Angeles endures insane housing costs (which is driving-out its middle class), while non-zoned Houston enjoys some of America’s most affordable housing. Such freedom allows rare quirks, like either a convenient mini-mart or a lone high-rise amidst a sea of small cottages—but such exceptions exist even in heavily-zoned cities, and these costs of free markets are arguably well worth their benefits.

So, zoning has illusory benefits but substantial detriments. Land-use is best decided neither in voting-booths nor in planning bureaus, but in free markets. De-zoning is especially needed during the 2020s as we Americans endure a “crisis” of skyrocketing housing costs that are driving homebuyers increasingly toward high-density or even homelessness. Un-zoned markets will allow homebuyers to more-easily obtain cheaper better options that will best serve their actual needs/wants, rather than what best serves politicians and perhaps their comrades or cronies. So, let’s please abolish zoning!

References:

Public Health Never Justifies Municipal Tyranny

Leave a reply

Provo’s city officers are currently using their “bully pulpit” to encourage Provo residents to voluntary follow Governor Gary Herbert’s guidelines to “stay safe, stay home,” which is certainly within the limits of their political authority. But this blog entry (unlike most) isn’t directly about them—it’s about our state legislators who are currently debating a bill to enable them with tyrannical powers. We’ll consider these alarming current events in a moment, but let’s first consider the principles involved…

Political systems exist NOT to reign over us, wantonly commanding us in all things, but ONLY to serve us—and, even in serving us, only in a very specific manner, which is by expertly assisting us in defending our equal God-given rights from others’ aggression. This is the only proper use of the coercive power that they wield over us. And, even in helping us to defend our rightful liberty, American politicians are all further limited by Constitutional law, which they have all sworn a solemn oath-of-office to uphold, and which includes various power-restricting civil liberties such as due process.

These principles do not change at all during alleged emergencies, such as the ongoing coronavirus (COVID19) pandemic; instead, emergencies are times for politicians to do what they should do at ALL other times—to defend our rightful liberty in accordance with Constitutional law. So, for example, its fine for politicians to thwart one sick person from knowingly-and-willfully exposing another person to a deadly disease, all within the confines of due process. But it’s never fine for them to enforce draconian policies that impede the vast majority of healthy citizens from peacefully exercising their basic rights to worship or work or protest.

Despite such facts, seeming crises may provide ample false excuses for power-hungry politicians to usurp power from us citizens, which is usually hard for us to ever regain fully. Sadly, many American politicians, especially governors and some mayors, are currently doing exactly this in the name of keeping the public healthier than it would otherwise be. Although public health is a laudable goal, it should never come at the expense of our rightful liberty. Instead, our politicians should be defending us citizens in our efforts to freely go about our daily business as long as we don’t infringe upon other people’s equal God-given rights. And this includes allowing us citizens to freely take our own sensible precautions to remain healthy.

Utah’s state legislature is currently meeting in an online special session to consider “emergency” legislation to deal with the ongoing coronavirus (COVID19) pandemic. Such bills include HB 3009, which would empower local public officers (such as Provo’s mayor and city council) to declare emergencies and then exercise unchecked power in the name of keeping the public healthier than it would otherwise be. Such power would include ignoring due-process-of-law, detaining us indefinitely without charge, wantonly closing our churches or businesses, and prohibiting our Constitutionally-acknowledged rights to assemble and even protest. Such laws are unconstitutional and, therefore, they are also innately invalid—but they still shouldn’t be enacted.

Some defend this bill on the basis that these same powers are already granted to local health departments, and that this bill would simply transfer these existing powers from unelected bureaucrats to elected politicians—but neither party should wield such power. Police should only have power (within the limits of due process) to restrain sick people from engaging in behaviors that carry a reasonable chance of injuring and/or killing other people. Anything more than this is tyranny and usurpation. Please contact your state legislators to remind them of their oaths-of-office, along with the implications of those oaths, and also to urge them to oppose this bill as long as it continues to defy our rightful liberty and/or Constitutional law!

References: