Where are the libertarians/conservatives on land use?

I've been intrigued that there are no libertarian/right-wing approaches to urban planning/land use that are the least bit credible or have popular resonance. In major metropolitan areas i.e where zoning (or its functional equivalent) is needed, there is overwhelming consensus for zoning.

There are useful & provocative conservative critiques of society. (Vouchers for schools, as one example.) Many are rooted in deregulation. But the conservative critique stops at land. No one talks seriously about deregulating land use because
a) there is no political support;
b) no one can imagine what it would be like;
3) conservatives own houses too and benefit from the settled expectations provided by land use laws.

Yes some people rail against zoning/permitting etc but they have no alternative to it.

It is obvious to the vast majority of people that if we are to live in relatively high density (the American suburb included) then we need some set of rules. Oh yes, one can say that ours are cumbersome and overly-intrusive and ineffective --- but that is a matter of degree and execution, not principle.

Simplify, clarify, make more fair and transparent: yes, absolutely.

But will the rules still be footed on the police power? How could it be otherwise. The transaction costs of a series of private contracts and covenants are too high and ineffcient; that's why we have standard form contracts in every business -- to simplify transactions. Look at zoning as way of enhancing social efficiency by creating a common set of rules about what one can do with property. No serious business person wants to do away with zoning (except when it comes to their own property.)

It's a marvelous social invention; and it didn't start with Euclid. Conservatives make much of property rights but offer no intellectually respectable alternative to our current land law system. Nibble about the edges, yes. But provide a systemic alternative which deals with real concerns, no.

Comments

[John Wirth]

You throw conservatives and libertarians together as if they are the two sides of one coin. They are not.

Conservatives have a healthy distrust for government, but do not believe that "no government" is the answer. The father of (relatively) modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, wrote his most famous treatise in support of government and in oppostion to anarchy. Even Adam Smith advocated for government regulation of certain activities.

Libertarians want to get rid of government, liberals believe government can effectively plan for utopia and conservatives understand that government power must be tempered and limited but has historical roles that are important for an orderly society.

True conservatives believe that zoning, in its basic form, has a proper place. Yes, we nibble about the edges, and we try to contain and oppose dramtic increases in government power. That is the conservative way.

Nevertheless, we recognize that zoning powers need limits; that government plans seldom are realized; that some zoning activities truly constitute taking; that property rights are a fundamental right; that zoning codes should not be arbitrary or reflect significant subjective discretion; that zoning should be done in a macro rather than a micro manner; that zoning should temper and not control or create markets; that each zoning act needs to be weighed against the cost to which property owners are subjected; and that the planning process is not the goal but is only a means to an end.