> Do you see the fallacy of this argument? I do. If you go read the historical justification for zoning law in the US (by the way zoning and land use laws wer

> Do you see the fallacy of this argument? I do. If you go read the historical justification for zoning law in the US (by the way zoning and land use laws were originally intended to keep negroes out rich neighborhoods) they rest on the idea that as long as the government can come up with a "rational basis" that the law would "improve the public welfare" than zoning laws are a legitimate exercise in state police power. This was around the 1920's. Later you have a concern for civil rights but the courts pretty much ignored the issue of how zoning might impact poor minorities. There's been some lefty rumbling about maybe modifying the zoning code so that poor minorities can still afford to live in rich areas. Of course the remedies proposed are better zoning laws, not no zoning laws. My concern is that these land use laws take away yield from capital (ie rent from landowners). The US economy has not been growing very fast lately - I don't think the US can any longer afford the costs of an extensive regulatory state. Locking away the returns to land in exchange for centrally planning all the land uses might make things feel "nice" in the short run but in the long run could impoverish the country.