How would zoning work in a libertarian society?

[Matt Collins]

A friend of mine is asking for ideas on how zoning would work in a libertarian society.... any good links to such information?

[acptulsa]

Ask him if he's ever heard of homeowners' covenants, Matt.

Then you're pretty much done.

[Bryan]

As always, by mutual consent.

Houston has no zoning, here is a recent piece that explains the result. Some like it, others hate it....


JOEL KOTKIN AND TORY GATTIS

America’s Opportunity City

Lots of new jobs and a low cost of living make Houston a middle-class magnet.

Summer 2014

GAVIN HELLIER/JAI/CORBIS

.....
An even bigger component of Houston’s growth, however, may be its planning regime, which allows development to follow the market instead of top-down government directives. The city and its unincorporated areas have no formal zoning, so land use is flexible and can readily meet demand. Getting building permits is simple and quick, with no arbitrary approval boards making development an interminable process. Neighborhoods can protect themselves with voluntary, opt-in deed restrictions or minimum lot sizes. Architect and developer Tim Cisneros credits the flexible planning system for the city’s burgeoning apartment and town-home development. “There are a lot of people who come here for jobs but don’t want to live, at least not yet, in the Woodlands,” he notes. “We can respond to this demand fast because there’s no zoning, and approvals don’t take forever. You could not do this so fast in virtually any city in America. The lack of zoning allows us not only to do neat things—but do them quickly and for less money.”

The flexible planning regime is also partly responsible for keeping Houston’s housing prices low compared with those of other major cities. On a square-foot basis, according to Knight Frank, a London-based real-estate consultancy, the same amount of money buys you almost seven times as much space in Houston as it does in San Francisco and more than four times as much as in New York. (See “Houston, New York Has a Problem,” Summer 2008.)

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_3_houston.html

[CaseyJones]

ZONES? We Don't Need No Stinking ZONES!

[Ronin Truth]

Houston, plus more voluntary.

[euphemia]

Whatever preserves the health, safety, and liberty of others should be the sole consideration of property law. We live in an older, densely populated area. It is easy to modify one's property here. I would not, however, want someone owning an exotic animal like a tiger. I also like leash laws because I don't want some other animal prowling my property and leaving, um, gifts. I also think dumping laws are there for a reason. My neighborhood is diverse, and they come from cultures that don't mind an old washing maching dumped on the street. I think these are health and safety issues.

[linux07ster]

http://mises.org/daily/3506/How-Zoni...a-Free-Society

[Bryan]

http://mises.org/daily/3506/How-Zoni...a-Free-Society

I am basically 100% pro mises but they got a few points wrong here...

*However, even in the absence of any restrictions, the possibility of such outcomes is extremely remote and fears that the repeal of zoning laws would open the floodgates to outrageous developments such as these are overstated.[2]

Building developments and commercial usage of buildings are almost always strongly driven by the desire for profit and therefore they will almost always cater to the tastes of prospective property purchasers and customers. There is not likely to be much demand for residential or commercial space in a skyscraper towering over a sleepy suburban area, simply because such a tall development would unnecessarily and wastefully economize on cheap and ample ground space, leading to excessive expense.

This has been shown not to be the case. What they aren't considering is that the sleepy area could actually be a deed restricted area of prime land that was established 50+ years prior and is now in the middle of town. Houston has seen exactly such controversy recently where a neighborhood has fought to stop the development of an adjacent tower.

[Bryan]

Here is an example...

http://stopashbyhighrise.org/

[Bryan]

To keep adding..

The biggest problem Houston has seen, IMO, is dealing / planning infrastructure, with the biggest issues being roads/traffic and water drainage. The problem is that the roads are developed based on certain population densities and when there is massive redevelopment that far exceeds the original plan, you get a big traffic mess. On the drainage, the drain system is developed for certain capacities based on the level of development (think concrete vs dirt) and as more concrete goes down in an area the drainage needs increase. In some Houston area's, when there is new development some neighbors suddenly start to get flooded in big rains when they never had for 50+ years before. Costs to fix both these problems is massive - Houston recently added a "rain tax" as a result of the flooding problems- basically the more concrete you have the more you pay.

Some major new hi-rises also require electrical upgrades.

The grip one could have on some of this is that developers find ways to maximize profits while all the costs to deal with the mess get socialized out to the taxpayers.

[TheTexan]

Contrary to the alleged necessity of zoning laws, there is ample scope for noncoercive solutions to zoning issues in the context of a free society of private-property ownership and nonaggression. In particular, private ownership of property allows for restrictive covenants to be agreed between the property owner and another party so that the allowable uses of land are limited according to the wishes of the parties. It follows that property owners within a given neighborhood may contractually agree to impose restrictions on themselves with respect to the allowable developments on their land or the allowable uses of their property.

I disagree with this, as it solves nothing. These contracts between willing individuals would/should expire upon those individuals' deaths, and furthermore, all contracts are breachable. So this isn't really a solution. These contracts don't have nearly the same guarantee that zoning laws currently have behind them.

If one were to propose that these contracts should not be breachable, and should not expire, so as to guarantee the sanctity of this zoning agreement, well, that's basically how states are formed. It shouldn't be hard to extrapolate how an unbreachable contract that dictates what you can do on your own land would lead to statism.

There's a couple good solutions to the zoning issue:
1) Buy the land that you want to control
2) STFU and deal with it

IMO, anarcho capitalism shouldn't have to have a perfect solution to these kinds of things. The world isn't perfect. Having the perfect solution to all problems that plague man-kind is a rather high bar, a far higher standard than any other political system is held to.

[Carlybee]

To keep adding..

The biggest problem Houston has seen, IMO, is dealing / planning infrastructure, with the biggest issues being roads/traffic and water drainage. The problem is that the roads are developed based on certain population densities and when there is massive redevelopment that far exceeds the original plan, you get a big traffic mess. On the drainage, the drain system is developed for certain capacities based on the level of development (think concrete vs dirt) and as more concrete goes down in an area the drainage needs increase. In some Houston area's, when there is new development some neighbors suddenly start to get flooded in big rains when they never had for 50+ years before. Costs to fix both these problems is massive - Houston recently added a "rain tax" as a result of the flooding problems- basically the more concrete you have the more you pay.

Some major new hi-rises also require electrical upgrades.

The grip one could have on some of this is that developers find ways to maximize profits while all the costs to deal with the mess get socialized out to the taxpayers.

The company I work for now pays in excess of $40,000 a year in drainage fees. There's a lot of development on our street and they are tearing up the road with all the construction...I'm guessing taxpayers will foot that repair too.

[economics102]

Don't forget, in a libertarian society, ALL land, including roads, is privately owned. So all landowners still end up negotiating/collaborating on "zoning," it's just that it's worked out privately, directly by the stakeholders instead of handed down by a central government.

If you're considering buying a plot of land to build a house or a store on, your purchase will no doubt be contingent on securing certain rights from whoever owns the road providing you access to your land (for example, securing a guarantee that only houses will be built on your road or that certain noise level rules will be enforced on other properties along the road). On the flipside, the road owner will likely enforce certain rules on you (for example, requiring you to maintain a sidewalk or build your house a certain distance back from the road).

Prospective road buyers/builders would, in turn, likely work out zoning-like arrangements with owners of other connecting or nearby roads.

So, zoning-like decisions would be made with the flexibility, agility, and efficiency of the free market instead of the slowness, stupidity, and disconnected-from-stakeholder-demand way the government does it.

[ClydeCoulter]

And, like any other set of rules, would be in place and expanded upon (during each resale) for each potential buyer into the future. And, only when enough people finally get tired of all of the rules and restrictions will they raise up to change them.

[angelatc]

Whatever preserves the health, safety, and liberty of others should be the sole consideration of property law. We live in an older, densely populated area. It is easy to modify one's property here. I would not, however, want someone owning an exotic animal like a tiger. I also like leash laws because I don't want some other animal prowling my property and leaving, um, gifts. I also think dumping laws are there for a reason. My neighborhood is diverse, and they come from cultures that don't mind an old washing machine dumped on the street. I think these are health and safety issues.

I totally support the rights of local government to make rules about lawn length and red lights and speed limits and such. I don't want to worry that WalMart is going to decide to build a store right next to my house.

I hate HOAs but I fully support the right of people who want to live in a neighborhood like that, at least right up until they decide to run for office so they can make all neighborhoods like that.

The only reason I was voting for Ron Paul was because he didn't want the federal government to decide how long my lawn was going to be.

As for the original post, maybe Alabama has some answers. I have a friend there - they lived in a cabin in the woods with no running water and a generator that only kicked on every few days. I said that the government would never allow that here, and she said they didn't have building codes in Alabama. Which might be an exaggeration, but if I were researching this, that's where I'd go.

[angelatc]

If one were to propose that these contracts should not be breachable, and should not expire, so as to guarantee the sanctity of this zoning agreement, well, that's basically how states are formed. It shouldn't be hard to extrapolate how an unbreachable contract that dictates what you can do on your own land would lead to statism..

But the statism comes only because a contracts can be breached. If I buy a plot of land where the community has decided I have to cut my grass every two weeks, then I am entering into the terms of the agreement when I buy (or rent) the house - so be it. I have made a decision that this is a community that I will be able to live happily in by agreeing to that one standard. That isn't statism - thats civilization.

(IF you move into a community that has such a standard, then spend the rest of your life moaning dramatically about it, you might be a useless libertarian.)
'
But then after I've lived the house for a few years....suppose the city council decides that all my curtains need to be white. That is adding terms to a contract, something that I did not agree to when I bought the property, and that's where statism comes into play. That's what should not be allowed.

If they want to say that the next person to own (or rent) my house needs white curtains, and white curtains will be required forever, then so be it. But changing the rules after I arrived? That's where they lose me.

[TheTexan]

But the statism comes only because a contracts can be breached. If I buy a plot of land where the community has decided I have to cut my grass every two weeks, then I am entering into the terms of the agreement when I buy (or rent) the house - so be it. I have made a decision that this is a community that I will be able to live happily in by agreeing to that one standard. That isn't statism - thats civilization.

(IF you move into a community that has such a standard, then spend the rest of your life moaning dramatically about it, you might be a useless libertarian.)
'
But then after I've lived the house for a few years....suppose the city council decides that all my curtains need to be white. That is adding terms to a contract, something that I did not agree to when I bought the property, and that's where statism comes into play. That's what should not be allowed.

If they want to say that the next person to own (or rent) my house needs white curtains, and white curtains will be required forever, then so be it. But changing the rules after I arrived? That's where they lose me.

And if your son inherits the house, does he inherit the contract you agreed to...?

Either hes born into a contract (statism) or that contract eventually expires and your happy community now has to deal with a rogue lawn with grass over 12 inches

[William Tell]

'
But then after I've lived the house for a few years....suppose the city council decides that all my curtains need to be white. That is adding terms to a contract, something that I did not agree to when I bought the property, and that's where statism comes into play. That's what should not be allowed.

Most rules are put into place after people have already lived there. All these lawn ordinances and things came after people already lived there.

[linux07ster]

Do zoning rules need to come from government? This article highlights the economic features of one of the largest privately-planned towns: Celebration, Florida. The 10,000-resident town includes numerous privately-provided public goods as well as rules that reduce negative externalities within the community. These features are designed to internalize exter-nalities and maximize the value of the community to customers. We discuss how private planners, in contrast to government zoning boards, have an incentive to figure out which community features consumers value. Using this master-planned community as an example of a successful corporate venture, we show that the private sector can successfully provide zoning on a citywide scale.

http://purl.umn.edu/132444

[pcosmar]

Zoning would not exist.
Zoning is an authoritarian construct,, and contrary to liberty.

[thoughtomator]

Zoning would not exist.
Zoning is an authoritarian construct,, and contrary to liberty.

With respect to one's own private property, one can be as authoritarian as one likes and it is no affront to liberty. So the answer here is that "zoning, if it occurred, would have to be done by private actors with their own property".

[TheTexan]

With respect to one's own private property, one can be as authoritarian as one likes and it is no affront to liberty. So the answer here is that "zoning, if it occurred, would have to be done by private actors with their own property".

Correct answer

[CaptUSA]

Some communities would prefer no zoning at all. Some may want a government to enforce the rules. Some may want HOA's.

Personally, I like options. Keep these decisions as locally as possible. And once the decisions are made, keep them consistent. Most of the problems with zoning happen when changes are made. If you base your purchase on certain rules and they change them on you, you should get compensation.

[Carlybee]

I totally support the rights of local government to make rules about lawn length and red lights and speed limits and such. I don't want to worry that WalMart is going to decide to build a store right next to my house.

I hate HOAs but I fully support the right of people who want to live in a neighborhood like that, at least right up until they decide to run for office so they can make all neighborhoods like that.

The only reason I was voting for Ron Paul was because he didn't want the federal government to decide how long my lawn was going to be.

As for the original post, maybe Alabama has some answers. I have a friend there - they lived in a cabin in the woods with no running water and a generator that only kicked on every few days. I said that the government would never allow that here, and she said they didn't have building codes in Alabama. Which might be an exaggeration, but if I were researching this, that's where I'd go.

They built a new Walmart here in a gentrified area and the residents had a cow. Walmart won.