How quickly we become enthusiasts for zoning.

Right Reason invited back Roger Scruton to wander-about on Town Planning. One of the commenters — the comments are actually far more engaging/provocative than the post, which is vague and seems to have little to do with American cities — illustrates the point about how quickly even right-wingers come to love government intervention when it protects their own particular interests. She writes:

In fact, interestingly, Max Goss brought up the possibility that a Wal-Mart might be put in across the street from my house in an attempt to get me to abandon what he thought perhaps was my extreme libertarianism. Okay, I'm not an extreme libertarian. In fact, I _like_ zoning laws that make sure that Wal-Mart can't be built across from my house. But aren't those the very zoning laws that we're being told need to be tossed out in order to let us re-build our cities as beautiful, old-style New Urban cities with mixed-zoned areas so people can walk to the store? Well, in that case, I guess we're just going to have to ban Wal-Mart, or else if I end up unluckily in a "mixed-zoned" area, I really _could_ have one right across from my house. But that would be un-aesthetic. So maybe the present zoning laws do have something to be said for them. (italics added)

Comments

[Max Goss]

Who ever said conservatives opposed "government intervention"? You're thinking of libertarians. The conservative is unabashed about using government to promote certain interests. Is that a problem?

[David Sucher]

Max.

It's only a problem when the right is against "big government" and "activist judges" -- except when it comes to their programs.

If the Right was honest and said "Look, we agree with the need for government; Where we disagree is that we want government programs for our supporters," then I would have a lot more respect.

[Max Goss]

I didn't catch my typoes until too late! The previous post should have said:

David, conservative support for certain types of government intervention is perfectly compatible with the conservative suspicion of big government and judicial activism. We support government activity, but not the wrong kinds or excessive amounts of it.

The conservative does, I think, say what you suggest in your second paragraph, but with one qualification: "...and we think that promoting the interests of those who tend to support us is consonant with justice and is actually in the interest of all of society."

Now, I certainly don't endorse everything that every self-identifying conservative politician says. Far from it. But until one comes along and says that he opposed not only to big government, but to government as such, it will be hard to take your criticism seriously.

[Brian Miller]

"Government is the problem" close enough?

Of course, we all know that our "conservative" "limited" government is now monitoring who is borrowing "suspicious books like "1984" from the library-as one college student found out when two "Homeland Security" officers showed up on his doorstep recently.

[Lisa Williams]

I realize this is just a thought experiment, but my town is actually considering zoning a large parcel that's going to be redeveloped with "Smart Growth Zoning." The state of Massachusetts developed versions of this zoning to be added to local zoning ordinances. There's also a "transit oriented development" program that this particular project would qualify for, giving the town grants to build in things like better sidewalks, a nicer bus stop, etc., to make the project have better access to transit. I notice that the two apartment buildings in town that have many of these characteristics -- they're across the street from stores, they're about a block from the electric trolley -- are extremely popular with seniors.

I can assure you that just because it's mixed use doesn't mean that one half will be taken up with a Wal-Mart. It isn't unrestricted mixed use.

The town I live in is very, very dense, and given everybody's concerns about traffic and parking, if someone tried to put a WalMart there everybody would completely go nuts. The council chamber would be packed.

[TM Lutas]

I view the problem as one of insufficient information. If you could quickly calculate and assign the negative and positive externalities of proposed developments, small and large on the neighbors, I think that the issues of land use would crystalize quickly for a lot of people and we'd get a lot better land use all around. People would start to *think* about how to make things better much more frequently and when they make things worse, the social consequences would become more pronounced.

The problem is how to create such a system. I think that it's doable from an IT perspective but we're not there quite yet for cost reasons.

[brian miller]

Interesting thought experiment, TM Lutas.

My caveat-and its a big one-is that "positives" often include socially pernicious forces like snobbery. "How dare you build a $450,000 house within sight of my $600,000 house. My children shouldn't have to play with children from families earning only $80,000 per year." This is an actual (modified) quote from a local public hearing.

Or, what if your expectations are completely unrealistic. ie.e, you live in a developed neighborhood next to the only undeveloped residential lot in your hillside neighborhood-yet you expect that lot to remain completely undeveloped to preserve 100% of your views-even if the property owner wants to build a lower, smaller house than zoning would permit.

[Glen Raphael]

Brian: The student/Little Red Book/Homeland Security thing was a hoax. The student has since confessed that he invented the story.