Comments on: New Urbanism’s Pitfalls http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/12/new-urbanisms-menace/ Ed Ring's EcoWorld Posts Sun, 12 Oct 2008 01:45:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: no_on_L http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/12/new-urbanisms-menace/#comment-70476 no_on_L Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:50:48 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/12/new-urbanisms-menace/#comment-70476 http://www.pacificaquarry.org/story/snake-oil Here's the site that chronicles our hard won victory over a millionaire "new urbanism" developer. http://www.pacificaquarry.org/story/snake-oil Here’s the site that chronicles our hard won victory over a millionaire “new urbanism” developer.

]]> By: Julia XA http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/12/new-urbanisms-menace/#comment-69233 Julia XA Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:13:50 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/12/new-urbanisms-menace/#comment-69233 But there hasn't been LESS zoning in rural and suburban regions for decades. The zoning/land use control mindset has increased every year since its inception, but that was true well before NU/Smart Growth got underway. If supply and demand would generate better results (as I believe they would) the question is WHY did Land Use/Zoning take off after WWII? Why were development controls in rural and suburban areas created in the first place? The answer is that people feel entitled to control other people's property ... and that hasn't changed with NU/Smart Growth. Only the ideology has changed, not the impetus for control. Same old same old. It's counterproductive to attack NU/Smart growth from a property rights angle, particularly as regards affordability. That isn't the issue. The issue is how do we allow greater choice in the marketplace? But there hasn’t been LESS zoning in rural and suburban regions for decades.

The zoning/land use control mindset has increased every year since its inception, but that was true well before NU/Smart Growth got underway.

If supply and demand would generate better results (as I believe they would) the question is WHY did Land Use/Zoning take off after WWII? Why were development controls in rural and suburban areas created in the first place? The answer is that people feel entitled to control other people’s property … and that hasn’t changed with NU/Smart Growth. Only the ideology has changed, not the impetus for control. Same old same old.

It’s counterproductive to attack NU/Smart growth from a property rights angle, particularly as regards affordability. That isn’t the issue. The issue is how do we allow greater choice in the marketplace?

]]> By: Ed Ring http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/12/new-urbanisms-menace/#comment-69229 Ed Ring Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:25:05 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/12/new-urbanisms-menace/#comment-69229 Julia: I agree with your points. The emphasis on property rights currently is simple - I believe that overall the restrictions on land development are far more pervasive and severe today than at any point in our past. In practice this means infill is the only option available for land development, because the urban service boundary has curtailed if not eliminated all development that isn't infill. It's obvious why the land owner outside a development boundary has had their property rights infringed - but the artificially imposed impact the development boundary has on the land owner within the development boundary is just as huge. Their land is artificially made more valuable, and huge artificial incentives and mandates are in place to favor high density conversion. If market demand were allowed to work, it is much less likely high density infill would occur in rural neighborhoods, because values and incentives would generate organically from demand, and therefore, ironically, less zoning restrictions generate a better result in terms of affordability and appropriate development. Julia: I agree with your points. The emphasis on property rights currently is simple - I believe that overall the restrictions on land development are far more pervasive and severe today than at any point in our past. In practice this means infill is the only option available for land development, because the urban service boundary has curtailed if not eliminated all development that isn’t infill. It’s obvious why the land owner outside a development boundary has had their property rights infringed - but the artificially imposed impact the development boundary has on the land owner within the development boundary is just as huge. Their land is artificially made more valuable, and huge artificial incentives and mandates are in place to favor high density conversion. If market demand were allowed to work, it is much less likely high density infill would occur in rural neighborhoods, because values and incentives would generate organically from demand, and therefore, ironically, less zoning restrictions generate a better result in terms of affordability and appropriate development.

]]> By: Julia XA http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/12/new-urbanisms-menace/#comment-69223 Julia XA Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:57:57 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/12/new-urbanisms-menace/#comment-69223 You speak of "private property rights and economic liberties [being] undermined" by goverment agencies, professional planners, etc. and their monolithic ideology. While this is certainly true, you fail to not that this has been the case for many decades. To be truly for private property rights and economic liberties, you'd champion different forms of land use and development as welcome additions to the marketplace. If a citizen owns a piece of land and has an idea how to develop it that he thinks will make him money, it is land use and zoning laws that are his chief impediment .... if his idea is outside the ideology du jour. This has been the case for 60+ years (if not longer). Is it not just as anti-property rights to to tell a property owner he can only build one home on his property as it is to tell him he must build 10? (Also, if his neighbors don't want 10 homes next door, they are free to buy the property and develop it the way they want). Land use and zoning laws are antithetical to free market, period. There is no getting around that. But this is not something new that arrived with NU or Smart Growth or whatever the catchphrase of the day is. So I don't think you can criticize NU/Smart Growth on those grounds. The problem with your argument against monolithic land use policies and ideologies is that you don't apply it consistently to PAST and current monolithic ideologies. In short, there are many valid criticisms of land planning/zoning systems past and present. But anti-property rights criticism is not one of them. You speak of “private property rights and economic liberties [being] undermined” by goverment agencies, professional planners, etc. and their monolithic ideology. While this is certainly true, you fail to not that this has been the case for many decades.

To be truly for private property rights and economic liberties, you’d champion different forms of land use and development as welcome additions to the marketplace.

If a citizen owns a piece of land and has an idea how to develop it that he thinks will make him money, it is land use and zoning laws that are his chief impediment …. if his idea is outside the ideology du jour. This has been the case for 60+ years (if not longer).

Is it not just as anti-property rights to to tell a property owner he can only build one home on his property as it is to tell him he must build 10? (Also, if his neighbors don’t want 10 homes next door, they are free to buy the property and develop it the way they want).

Land use and zoning laws are antithetical to free market, period. There is no getting around that. But this is not something new that arrived with NU or Smart Growth or whatever the catchphrase of the day is. So I don’t think you can criticize NU/Smart Growth on those grounds.

The problem with your argument against monolithic land use policies and ideologies is that you don’t apply it consistently to PAST and current monolithic ideologies.

In short, there are many valid criticisms of land planning/zoning systems past and present. But anti-property rights criticism is not one of them.

]]>