3 ms·

You can sort of increase supply by building taller buildings.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
zoning prevents the market from meeting demand properly. the justification is preventing externalities such as turning what was a nice small town into a condo complex etc. but the citizens who want to keep it a small town shouldn't do so at the end of a gun (legislation), if they want it they should pay for it.
- evgen 17y ago
  The problem with this argument is that the citizens who want to keep a small town small were there first. They created and/or maintain the urban environment that makes the location appealing for the would-be condo builder. As such they have the right to make whatever rules they want within certain limits -- think of it as a "private" club that has a specific membership requirement (you must live within the prescribed boundaries to join.) If I join your club I should expect to abide by the rules set by the members according to the process that existed when I joined, just because I think the walls of the clubhouse should be painted blue doesn't mean that I can decide on a whim paint a small part of the wall. If the condo-builder wants to create a building as tall as he wants then he should find some piece of land that does not have restrictions attached to it, build his condo, and see if the people come... Zoning restrictions are a part of the market. If it were not for the restrictions the land would have a different value. Part of what makes a piece of property valuable are the side-effects of these very restrictions.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    um...so do the townspeople collectively own the entire town? including each other's lots? because if a lot is private property, nothing prevents me from selling my lot to a condo builder. I think that you could have a system like the one you describe be just, simply have people own shares in the town. voting stock is a much better system than universal suffrage.

zoning prevents the market from meeting demand properly. the justification is preventing externalities such as turning what was a nice small town into a condo complex etc. but the citizens who want to keep it a small town shouldn't do so at the end of a gun (legislation), if they want it they should pay for it.

evgen 17y ago
The problem with this argument is that the citizens who want to keep a small town small were there first. They created and/or maintain the urban environment that makes the location appealing for the would-be condo builder. As such they have the right to make whatever rules they want within certain limits -- think of it as a "private" club that has a specific membership requirement (you must live within the prescribed boundaries to join.) If I join your club I should expect to abide by the rules set by the members according to the process that existed when I joined, just because I think the walls of the clubhouse should be painted blue doesn't mean that I can decide on a whim paint a small part of the wall. If the condo-builder wants to create a building as tall as he wants then he should find some piece of land that does not have restrictions attached to it, build his condo, and see if the people come... Zoning restrictions are a part of the market. If it were not for the restrictions the land would have a different value. Part of what makes a piece of property valuable are the side-effects of these very restrictions.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  um...so do the townspeople collectively own the entire town? including each other's lots? because if a lot is private property, nothing prevents me from selling my lot to a condo builder. I think that you could have a system like the one you describe be just, simply have people own shares in the town. voting stock is a much better system than universal suffrage.