Posted on 12/30/2004 9:19:55 AM PST by The Great Yazoo
When I was house-hunting, one of the things that struck me about the house that I eventually settled on was the fact that there were no curtains or shades on the bathroom window in the back. The reason was that there was no one living on the steep hillside in back, which was covered with trees.
Since I don't own that hillside, someday someone may decide to build houses there, which means that the bathroom would then require curtains or shades and our back porch would no longer be as private. Fortunately for me, local restrictive laws currently prevent houses from being built on that hillside.
Also fortunately for me, my continued criticisms of such laws in this column have not made a dent in the local authorities.
But suppose that someday either the courts will strike down land use restrictions or local officials will respect property rights. Maybe I will be long gone by then and the new owner of this house will be angry at the diminished privacy -- and consequently the diminished value of the house, caused by the building of houses on the hillside.
Would that anger be justified?
The fundamental question is: What did the homeowner buy? And would a change in laws deprive him of what he paid for?
Since the house and the wooded hillside are separate properties, the homeowner never paid for a hillside wooded in perpetuity.
If whoever owns the hillside finds that his property is worth more with houses on it, what right does the adjacent homeowner have to deprive the other owner of the benefits of building on that hillside or selling it to a builder?
True, my house was worth more because of the privacy provided by the wooded hillside. But there was no guarantee that the hill would remain wooded forever. Whoever buys the house buys its current privacy and the chance -- not a certainty -- that the hill will remain wooded.
If a homeowner wanted a guarantee that the hill would remain as is, he could have bought the hill. That way he would be paying for what he wanted, rather than expecting the government to deprive someone else for his benefit.
Many restrictive land use laws in effect turn a chance that someone paid for into a guarantee that they did not pay for, such as a guarantee that a given community would retain its existing character.
In the normal course of events, things change. Land that is not nearly as valuable as farmland as it would be for housing would be sold to people who would build housing. But restrictive laws prevent this from happening.
Such laws help preserve the existing character of the community, at the expense of farmers and others who would gladly sell their land to builders if they had a chance to do so. Because they can't, their value of their land is reduced drastically.
The biggest losers are those families who are deprived of housing and those families who are deprived of the standard of living they could have if they did not have to pay for sky-high rents or home prices due to an artificial scarcity of housing.
The biggest winners are existing homeowners, who see the value of their property go up by leaps and bounds. Also benefitting are environmentalist groups who are able to buy up farmland at a fraction of its value because there are so few alternatives for the farmers.
One of the rationales for such land use restrictions is the "preservation" of agricultural land. But nothing is easier than to dream up a rationale to put a fig leaf on naked self-interest. Far from being in danger of losing our food supply, we have had chronic agricultural surpluses for more than half a century.
Another rationale for laws restricting land use is that "open space" is a good thing, that it prevents "overcrowding" for example. But preventing people from building homes in one place only makes the crowding greater in other places. This is just another fig leaf for the self-interest of those who want other people to be forced to live somewhere else.
Whatever their rhetoric or rationales, environmentalists have no more rights under the Constitution than anyone else -- at least not until liberal judges began "interpreting" property rights away.
©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Zoning and environmental laws regarding development and land use are clearly needed and a justified function of government. The problem is they have gotten way beyond their rightful scope.
Greenspace, not Greenpeace.
OH!! Sorry...
A very large check.
You can write him directly c/o The Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6010, or use their contact page.
It's far more than zoning laws, but regulatory power in general, often for corrupt purposes. If you want to see a real-time, inflation adjusted, opportunity cost based analysis of the conversion of timberland to housing AND read a proposal for free market means to replace the need for regulatory government, you might want to examine my book.
When I say zoning regs and enviro laws are justified and a proper function of government I firmly believe I am correct. Should a town not have the ability to zone an area 'residential' and thus prevent a fireworks company from purchasing several lots and building a manufacturing and distribution facility? How is that not a proper function and jurisdiction of government?
Landowners can voluntarily, for their own interest, add restrictive covenants to their deeds governing exactly those issues which might conflict with quiet enjoyment.
It is the politicization that is the problem.
The government should stick to their own armed and dangerous knitting, as spelled out in the Constitution.
We disagree. Regulatory power destroys the intangible value of those goods for which we use that power to preserve. That fact disinvests the wealth necessary to care for those goods. It is sufficient power to be used for corrupt purposes that are very hard to detect and prosecute.
Should a town not have the ability to zone an area 'residential' and thus prevent a fireworks company from purchasing several lots and building a manufacturing and distribution facility? How is that not a proper function and jurisdiction of government?
The residents can enter into a contract precluding such instead.
Forgive my imprecision; I was thinking landowners.
As a renter, I strongly opposed these sidewalks - more work for me (shoveling snow) with no benefit to me.
If the landowners wanted to build the sidewalks with their own funds, what claim would you have to control the use of their property? Do you think the renters should compensate the owners if they could not realize a return on investment?
If, on the other hand, the sidewalk is to be built with public money, complain all you want as your rent pays the property taxes even if the check comes from the landowner.
There are several things wrong in this picture as you can see, the existence of property taxes being the most significant. Trying to fix a broken system with more political patches inevitably leads to unintended consequences.
If you go back to my original post on the matter I clearly ended it by stating that the current use and scope of government action in this areas has grown far beyond is proper scope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.