Too libertarian? Or not enough?

Desmond comments:

"I'm still uneasy as to the libertarian streak that runs through your commentary (along with that of Kunstler and Jane Jacobs). It's definitely appealing, but somehow doesn't sit right with me- my analysis isn't particularly deep at the moment, as I feel like this will be a long-term issue in my own conception of urbanism- it feels as though maybe it doesn't challenge the status-quo of social and market organization (particularly regarding land) to a great enough degree."

Well I am uneasy, too. What makes me uneasy is that in actuality there really isn't any principled, thoughtful Conservative/Libertarian (C/L) critique of how to create the built environment. In fact it was this discussion on God of the Machine (05/19/2003) about "Law and Architecture" which helped me give focus to City Comforts Blog. The discussion there ended on this note, with the comment directed to me:

If the "problem" is that you don't care for the way cities and towns look now (under rigid zoning, I hasten to add), couldn't it be easily rectified by simply appointing you land czar? Would that be any more unjust than allowing zoning boards to impose costs on people who get no say in the matter?

I thought further conversation unproductive.

But that, unfortunately, is the typical C/L response: either denial or sneering and ending in "It's my party..." (which is part of the lyrics of a song which may predate some of the readers here --- so I will try to find a URL later). There simply does not exist any intelligent or useful C/L commentary on land use governance. (Please, someone, prove me wrong!)

By the same token, and why I explicitly identify myself with the search for a libertarian approach to urbanism, is the dream-world state of most liberal urbanists who do not follow the implications of their statist views to the end. This gets us into a vastly larger subject: the distinction in American Constitutional Law between the respect given to "personal rights" versus "property rights." There was a shift earlier in the century, concurrent I believe with the shift of the American work force to "employees", to accord the former far greater status than the latter. That could only happen in an era in which fewer and fewer people actually viewed ownership of property as a real means to their daily bread i.e. "labor alientation" in Marxist terms, I believe.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about "the libertarian streak" at City Comforts Blog as the reality is that there is no C/L land use thinking worth a hill of beans. The complex, socially corrosive and very burdensome land use laws which we have today are going to be with us for a while as, whether right or wrong, the public perceives a problem and the liberal/statist approach is the only game in town.

The best we can do is to simplify. I have an idea in the back of my mind that Three Rules thinking is a way to boil down the essence of urbanity and simplify codes, at least for commercial districts. But it's still a form of code and will need a land use bureaucracy to administer it. So don't worry; planners will have jobs for a while.

But I hope that planners will also be able to have some "role distance" and acknowledge that while there is little choice but to have land use codes, let's not recognize them as urbanity itself --- a complex land use code is neither a substitute for a real city nor, historically-speaking, a necessity.

I think we should all beware of growing government power; I don't think liberals are aware-enough of it when it comes to powers over use of property.

My own awakening came about ten years ago. Seattle was in the midst of a "Comprehensive Planning" effort and the process statement with the development of a statement of "Core Values." My own suggestion was that the City should explicitly adopt a policy which stated that it would choose "the least intrusive means" in fulfilling policies. Of course I think that US Constitutional law already requires such a stance. But I thought it would be nice to have the City explicitly agree. I approached the local ACLU to garner some support, a worthy organization which I greatly admire. My contact there told me that they "would get back to me." That was ten years ago.

The City, too, seemed indifferent to any statement which might be used to limit its powers down the road.

So I had to be satisfied with this "Soapbox" article from the Seattle P-I. I apologize if it is not clear. I'll try to get a better scan and post a PDF as well.