Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
New at Reason
Jesse Walker quizzes author and professor William Bogart about the meaning of "sprawl."
Comments to "New at Reason":
Gimme Back My Dog | December 12, 2006, 1:12pm | #
I have spent exactly one day in Houston and I know why the Houston model has not been copied- Houston sucks. Or at least trying to get from point A to point B in Houston sucks.JW | December 12, 2006, 1:31pm | #
This is a component of a city, not just Houston.Have you ever tried to get across town in DC? DC is a designer city (as in purposefully designed) and you can't do it in less than an hour. Consider that DC is a relatively modest city size-wise and it's even worse.
Reginleif | December 12, 2006, 1:33pm | #
Out of masochistic curiosity, I just went over to Cyburbia to see if they've slammed Bogart yet. (They haven't.)I find some of the threads on that site rather frightening in how contemptuous of private property rights its regulars can be. In this thread, for example, one person claims that the tragedy of the commons is a lie, then goes on to display a fondness for a collective approach to property.
madpad | December 12, 2006, 1:43pm | #
Good article...except Bogart talks about planners and developers as if there's some big wall 'twixt the two.Facts are, in most growing cities, developers and contractors more or less run the planners. Directly or indirectly, they pour lots of money into the political process and hold tremendous sway over every planning decision that's made.
Contracting runs the way it does because Contractors Associations are usually very powerful and rig the process with arcane rules and watered-down inspections.
Cities don't wind up the way they do just because a planner said "do it this way." They wind up the way the do because a developer, a banker, a contractor and a council-person played golf together and figured out how to scratch each other's backs.
Subdivisions and sprawl could not have happened if it weren't a money maker for developers (Which it is).
I'm not pooh-poohing contractors or developers, just pointing out that planners are often the least to blame.
John | December 12, 2006, 1:44pm | #
"I find some of the threads on that site rather frightening in how contemptuous of private property rights its regulars can be. In this thread, for example, one person claims that the tragedy of the commons is a lie, then goes on to display a fondness for a collective approach to property."That is not surprising. What is the need for a planner if people are allowed to do what they want with their property? Planners only thrive in an environment where the government tells we lesser beings how we shal dispose of our property. If we can achieve desired results without their guidance, there is not much need for a planner is there? Basically these people want to play Sim City with our real cities and lives.
Russ R | December 12, 2006, 1:50pm | #
If nobody can actually define "sprawl", can anyone explain to me why it's a bad thing that ought to be reduced or eliminated?joe?
Dan T. | December 12, 2006, 1:51pm | #
What is the need for a planner if people are allowed to do what they want with their property?Planners are needed to some extent at least because a)what you do with your property effects others and their property and b) scarce resources are needed to service properties (sewer, water, power, roads) and so the allocation of said resources needs to be considered.
Lamar | December 12, 2006, 1:53pm | #
"This is a component of a city, not just Houston."Houston has DC beat tenfold, if the competition is to suck more. The tradeoff in this battle is the freedom to do what you want with your private property against the freedom from having your property devalued overnight because some jackass is exercising his right to do whatever he wants with his private property.
mitch | December 12, 2006, 1:58pm | #
Lamar,Are there statistics that suggest that property values in Houston are as volatile ("devalued overnight") as you say?
John | December 12, 2006, 2:00pm | #
"Houston has DC beat tenfold"I don't know Lamar. There are some very nice areas of Houston. It is not the city's fault that it was built on a swamp and the climate sucks. Yes, it is a crowded city with a lot of traffic, but that is really a result of the city being a victim of its own success. If the place wasn't so economically virbrant it wouldn't have so many people and so many traffic headaches. I don't see how Houston's problems such as they are would have been solved by better planning.
JW | December 12, 2006, 2:02pm | #
The tradeoff in this battle is the freedom to do what you want with your private property against the freedom from having your property devalued overnight because some jackass is exercising his right to do whatever he wants with his private property.And this is a component of a free society. What is the issue here? That you don't have the ability to lord over a neighbor painting his trim purple or that the decisions of other poeple affect you in some undefined way?
Shit happens that I can't control. I don't get garments knotted up over it. I have no doubt that I do things that other people don't like.
I have a guy down the street that cut down every tree on his lot. 8 big-ass oaks, cut down to stumps. Looks fairly stupid IMO. As much as it offends my eye, I have no place telling him that he cant do it, nor do I want someone telling me that I can't put a satellite dish on my roof.
Then again, after this past fall, with the oh-so-slutty oaks carpet bombing my yard with several thousand pounds of acorns (no, that's not an exaggeration), I think he had the right idea.
Laudanum Milkshake | December 12, 2006, 2:05pm | #
"That is not surprising. What is the need for a planner if people are allowed to do what they want with their property? Planners only thrive in an environment where the government tells we lesser beings how we shal dispose of our property. If we can achieve desired results without their guidance, there is not much need for a planner is there? Basically these people want to play Sim City with our real cities and lives."A few years ago in a local newspaper (southeastern Washington) I read an article where city planners were encouraging teachers to use Sim City to teach, because of its "realism". I tried to think how I would feel if our mayor treated us like I treated the sims, and I was scared shitless...
Ironchef | December 12, 2006, 2:08pm | #
I dunno Dan,I would make those who use the services, pay for them.
Jennifer | December 12, 2006, 2:13pm | #
The tradeoff in this battle is the freedom to do what you want with your private property against the freedom from having your property devalued overnight because some jackass is exercising his right to do whatever he wants with his private property.Personally, I'd rather see my property value drop than have a legal obligation to keep my neighbor's property value high. I also have a nasty aftertaste left over from being a little girl in the South and hearing the following "proof" of black inferiority: "Every time a black person moves into a white neighborhood the property values drop!"
Property values are not some law of nature enshrined in stone; property values are simply opinions. And the law has no business telling me that what I can and cannot do with my property should be limited by other people's opinions (as opposed to demonstrable harm).
(Pre-emptive response: anyone who says "gee, Jennifer, I guess you think rape should be legal because it's just a matter of the woman's opinion" is either intellectually dishonest or a complete dumbass.)
MikeP | December 12, 2006, 2:14pm | #
I would make those who use the services, pay for them.Indeed. In a free society, the word 'scarce' indicates a pricing problem, not a planning problem.
Lost_In_Translation | December 12, 2006, 2:33pm | #
One problem with the lack of zoning in Houston is the depression of property value. My parents house value has gone from 190k to 220k in 13 years of living in Houston, and thats with living in a fairly accessible suburb and a housing boom in the past decade. In short, housing value sucks in Houston because of a lack of zoning. People looking to buy a house see a nice farm behind your house with picturesque views and think, "well, thats nice open land for a walmart, don't want to live here". There is no certainty that a nice neighborhood will remain nice in houston and when the next strip center goes up with the trash alley facing your backyard. Before we extoll the values of no zoning and the self organization of cities, ask the people that live there what they actually think.Lamar | December 12, 2006, 2:33pm | #
John, you might have a point. I really just have it in for Houston because it's disgusting. The porn store across from the fine arts museum is a bit odd, but didn't destroy my time there.Mitch, if you aren't kidding, and you really don't have Google, perhaps you should check out Posner's criticism of zoning laws here.
I like how Laudanam Milkshake turns this into an issue of a neighbor's disgusting purple paint. Forget the neighbors man. What about when you plunk $300,000 down on a property, and they build a landfill next door, or a coal-fired power plant with no pollution control, or an airport. If you want to live next to an oil refinery, Houston is your place. Just don't expect your real estate to appreciate much (here's an article in defense of Houston).
Sorry Jennifer, I'm not talking about the Munsters who move in, I'm talking about the chicken farm that smells like ammonia and shit 24/7.
Jennifer, you’re really splitting hairs with the “property value = opinion” thing. Are you seriously saying that if your next-door neighbor did something on his property that caused others not to want to purchase yours for what it was worth beforehand, that you’ve suffered no harm?
Isaac Bartram | December 12, 2006, 2:40pm | #
Actually, anyone planning a development of any size needs a planner as well as an engineer. Planners bring a different skill and knowledge set to the project than engineers.The problem here is that we have come to view planning as a political field rather than a technical one and a matter of coercion rather than cooperation.
I say this even though I have in the past cursed the poor math skills of planners when I have had to put hard numbers on their soft concepts.
Zoning is an issue where I veer a little bit from hardcore libertarians. I think zoning has a place in society. Restricting where a gas station goes (or the proverbial pig farm) is no different than restricting what type of fence your neighbor can put up. Of course I would argue less zoning is better than more, but I would also argue some zoning is better than none.
Eric the .5b | December 12, 2006, 2:43pm | #
A few years ago in a local newspaper (southeastern Washington) I read an article where city planners were encouraging teachers to use Sim City to teach, because of its "realism". I tried to think how I would feel if our mayor treated us like I treated the sims, and I was scared shitless...I've heard that suggested a few times, having much the same reaction.. That's why I always liked Alpha Centauri - it totally ran with the premise that the player was a basically-dictatorial figure treating his or her the population as tools to achieve global dominance. It was total build-your-own-dystopia fun.
Jesse Walker | December 12, 2006, 2:46pm | #
Before we extoll the values of no zoning and the self organization of cities, ask the people that live there what they actually think.The city of Houston has done that several times by putting the issue of zoning up for a vote. Each time it was soundly defeated.
MikeP | December 12, 2006, 2:47pm | #
In short, housing value sucks in Houston because of a lack of zoning.Are you seriously suggesting that it is a bad thing that such a valuable resource as land is cheap and remains cheap? That it is bad that more people can have more choices and use their wealth for more different uses?
Yes, planning creates artificial scarcity, benefitting the have's at the expense of the have not's. That is one of its worst characteristics.
Jesse Walker | December 12, 2006, 2:50pm | #
artificial scarcity, benefitting the have's at the expense of the have not'sAlong those lines, I should mention which Houstonians voted most overwelmingly against zoning: the poor. For some inexplicable reason, they have a fondness for affordable housing.
steveintheknow | December 12, 2006, 2:51pm | #
"Are you seriously saying that if your next-door neighbor did something on his property that caused others not to want to purchase yours for what it was worth beforehand, that you’ve suffered no harm?"Sounds like price fixing to me.
I am sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't allow your neighbor to build a pig farm in the middle of residential district. The problem is that pig farms have to go somewhere. Like everything else, zoning is a good to be taken in moderation. Nothin inferiates me more than a bunch of whining locals preventing the building of a needed service on NIMBY grounds. Why does Boston have the world's shitiest airport? Because yuppies in Concord and Lexington wouldn't let the city build a new one on the old air force base there.
ChrisO | December 12, 2006, 3:09pm | #
What about when you plunk $300,000 down on a property, and they build a landfill next door, or a coal-fired power plant with no pollution control, or an airport.Nuisance law has addressed that problem since before William the Conquerer.
Zoning laws were originally created to "keep out the undesireables," and that is still their primary purpose, particularly density regulations.
What I've noticed is that zoning law (especially the special-use and rezoning processes) is now used as a tool to ensure that nothing gets built at all. Basic projects take over a decade to complete, most of which is spent in endless rounds of neighborhood bitch sessions, lawsuits, impact studies, etc. etc. Heck, 95% of the interstate highway system was built in a little over a decade. Now, a project to widen a stretch of few miles or add a single connector highway takes longer than that. Societal paralysis.
John | December 12, 2006, 3:13pm | #
ChrisO,For you typical "community activist" it is no longer NIMBY but BANANA; Build Absolutely Nothing Anwhere Near Anything. That is the problem with zoning taken in anything but moderate doses.
Dan T. | December 12, 2006, 3:14pm | #
I'll admit that Jesse Walker and others have made some pretty good points here.It makes me wonder if somebody could constuct an argument that zoning laws lead to sprawl (since sprawl is what we were originally talking about) - the idea being that if zoning keeps property values artificially high in a city, people have to go further away from the city to find affordable land?
Or perhaps that argument has already been made?
Lamar | December 12, 2006, 3:15pm | #
"For some inexplicable reason, the [poor] have a fondness for affordable housing."...And playing the lottery. If they new how to make a decent investment, they might not be poor. Just a thought.
This all comes down to externalities. Zoning will be with us forever because we prefer the stability of not losing what is usually our most valuable asset to the freedom somebody has to turn their home into a pig shit disposal plant. A lot of zoning is idiotic, I know. But the moderates will always win this debate because humans have the desire to externalize their costs while not having someone else's costs imposed on them.
ChrisO: What is zoning, if not a subset of nuisance law? You say that zoning started to "keep out the desirables" but you are wrong. Zoning started when they built the Equitable Building in downtown NYC and it harmed rich people's views.
Jesse Walker | December 12, 2006, 3:26pm | #
Nuisance law is a longstanding part of the common law. Zoning was a product of the Progressive Era. Rather different sources.As for people knowing how to make a good investment, you're the one whose parents bought a house in Houston. Not that this was a bad choice -- I haven't looked up the inflation rate, but it sounds to me like their property's value has stayed roughly stable -- but it obviously wasn't a way to get rich.
Finally, could we drop the red herring about externalities? If you'd read the interview, you'd find this passage:
Houston is not zoned. It is not true, though, that Houston does not engage in land use control. The municipal government does directly prohibit or restrict certain types of negative externalities. And the municipal government participates in enforcing contractual arrangements. If someone is doing something that is not in conformance with the local covenant, the municipal government will take the lead, legally, in enforcing that covenant. In a sense they've privatized and contracted the services of what in most towns is the job of a planning department.
tchiers | December 12, 2006, 3:30pm | #
I can't believe people are implicitly suggesting California-style real estate madness is or should be the norm.No. Housing should sell for a small premium over it discounted-rental-cash-flow basis, not 300-400%. Annual appreciation should be moderate and reflect regional economic activity and changing local land uses, not some inflationary wild ride. Purchasers should be entities looking to extract value from the land by developing, renting, improving, or living in, not speculators looking for the next greater fool.
The fact that housing in Houston is relatively inexpensive is a feature, not a bug, and one of the big reasons that having no zoning rocks.
steveintheknow | December 12, 2006, 3:31pm | #
Isn't there a difference between city zoning and neighborhood associations? The much talked about, yet seldom seen pig-farm seems to have more to do with mortgage contract then broad based zoning, but I could be wrong.Lamar | December 12, 2006, 3:35pm | #
Ma's in FL, not Houston (it's an RV, not killing anybody, just making the houses near it worth $50,000 less than others in the area). And zoning was sort of a preventative nuisance law. Terrible in theory, though it seems to have worked. See in Manhattan, you couldn't just sue the nuisance and buy somewhere else. You had to avoid the nuisance in the first place.Your last post convinces me that Houston is the worst city in TX. They don't have zoning, but they really sort of do because the government sues people, but it doesn't really stabilize property values. Sounds like the worst of both worlds, and the land values reflect that.
Davebo | December 12, 2006, 3:37pm | #
Wow, I guess as a Houstonian I picked bad time to read Hit and Run!And I must say I don't recall the porn shop across from the MFA.
But hey, we do have more brothels than Amsterdam so there is a point there, but you say it like it's a bad thing!
Let me just reply to a few points made.
My parents house value has gone from 190k to 220k in 13 years of living in Houston, and thats with living in a fairly accessible suburb and a housing boom in the past decade.This is, quite frankly, a bit hard to believe. Although I'd add the home obviously isn't even in Houston.
It's a relatively inexpensive city to live in, especially for it's size. But I actually paid 190k in 1999 and my home is appraised at around 250k today. Maybe they should consider some lawn maintenance?
As to zoning, here it's all about homeowners associations and many are much more rabid than any zoning board you'd find.
And finally, the worst aspect of Houston is the weather. Which is sort of odd since I'd say the best aspect of Houston is.. the weather.
ChrisO | December 12, 2006, 3:41pm | #
Dan T.: It makes me wonder if somebody could constuct an argument that zoning laws lead to sprawl (since sprawl is what we were originally talking about) - the idea being that if zoning keeps property values artificially high in a city, people have to go further away from the city to find affordable land?The underlying issue being that many people WANT more land to call their own, not less, thus subverting much of modern planning theory.
Lamar: ...And playing the lottery. If they new how to make a decent investment, they might not be poor. Just a thought.
Yes, let them eat cake.
because humans have the desire to externalize their costs while not having someone else's costs imposed on them.
And Americans claim not to be immune to the allure of authoritarianism. The Saddam Hussein regime was little more than 20 years of the Al-Tikriti clan "externalizing their costs."
ChrisO: What is zoning, if not a subset of nuisance law? You say that zoning started to "keep out the desirables" but you are wrong. Zoning started when they built the Equitable Building in downtown NYC and it harmed rich people's views.
The "undesirables" in this case being a tall building full of not-so-rich employees. No different than trying to keep out the riffraff in Middleburg, Virginia.
In a sense, you are correct, in that use zoning was an attempt to create compatible uses that would forestall nuisance litigation. Even as a libertarian I have less problem with basic use regulations, though many of the more sophisticated forms nowadays are overly restrictive, in my opinion. However, density zoning is another, altogether more contemptible, type of regulation that is much more often the source of modern land-use conflicts.
Lost_In_Translation | December 12, 2006, 3:47pm | #
Jesse,I'm not sure when I saw zoning up for a vote, but I know my parents would have voted for it. I'm sure many businesses in Houston, especially ones that would be zoned out, would be highly motivated to vote against it. Also, it depends on the type of zoning plan presented whether it would solve anything or not. Zoning can be good or bad, but usually bad zoning can be voted against, whereas no zoning lays homeowners constantly exposed to the danger of undesirable industries plopping themselves whereever they feel like.
Jesse Walker | December 12, 2006, 3:53pm | #
Ma's in FL, not HoustonOops. I confused you with Lost In Translation, the other Houston-basher whose handle begins with L. Sorry about that.
it doesn't really stabilize property values
To judge from the anecdotes presented on this thread -- not necessarily a great idea -- it sounds to me like it does.
Lost_In_Translation | December 12, 2006, 3:54pm | #
Davebo,I'm not kidding. We live in Spring, in a very nice neighborhood, but because the area behind our house is farmland and not part of the existing neighborhood, our property value is completely stagnant. If that area was considered zoned for residential development or considered had an easement distance from which commerical property had to be located in relation to the neighborhood, my parents could get alot more for the house. Because its considered esentially an open lot free to any sort of development, we could have a fucking warehouse built up to 2 feet from our fencline and send our house value into a black hole. Don't tell me thats a rediculous scenario, because elsewhere in our neighborhood, that very thing happened and the people living on the edge of a nice woodland area now have a 60 ft tall wearhouse standing right behind them with not one thought by those who built it what they'd be doing to that entire block of the neighborhood.
I'm glad to see that nuisance law has been brought up. Most of the "pig farm/ gravel pit/ apocalyptic nightmare" arguments are rooted in that most basic of American urges: the desire to shift one's costs onto somebody else. If your neighbor starts building a scrap iron yard next door, you can go to court and stop him. But why do it on your own dime when you can, you know... "petition the government for redress of grievances?" And get everybody in town to pay your legal fees?
Riddle me this, why is it that the two most heavily regulated and planned cities in the country New York and San Fran are also the most expensive and hostile to the middle class? Some of that, yes has to do with the fact that they are desirable cities and are going to command a higher price, but not all of it. The places like Houston that are unplanned and unregulated are much more friendly and affordable to the average person. When someone shows me how urban planning in practice benefits someone besides wealthy entrenched interests, I might consider its merits.
Lost_In_Translation | December 12, 2006, 4:02pm | #
Jesse,Re: the poor voting against zoning
Do you realize how many people operate businesses out of their houses in Houston, whether its daycare, selling tires, car repair, building furiniture, etc? Many of these people live in what are the poor areas of Houston and zoning would mean they would have to close their ad-hoc businesses or face legal ramifications. Its no wonder they vote against zoning.
Listen, I know zoning Houston is impossible. Too many people have formed lives around the knowledge that there is no zoning and now zoning would hurt them. But just because its popular doesn't mean that no zoning is some ideal utopia of libertarianism. Frankly, all it does is discourage property investment in all but large areas of land (where organized developers can build housing to their specifications). Houston works, but a rational zoning plan could have made it work alot better.
Also, the actual city of Houston is an insatiable tax beast that sucks up valuable areas surrounding it and contributing little in return. Witness the occupied territories of Kingwood, Clear Lake, Katy, IAH, and soon to be Woodlands. Houston is not equipped to meet their municipal needs and yet just keeps sucking money away from successful suburbs.
John | December 12, 2006, 4:05pm | #
"Also, the actual city of Houston is an insatiable tax beast that sucks up valuable areas surrounding it and contributing little in return. Witness the occupied territories of Kingwood, Clear Lake, Katy, IAH, and soon to be Woodlands. Houston is not equipped to meet their municipal needs and yet just keeps sucking money away from successful suburbs."Isn't that because it is a typical big city government full of corruption, waste and socialism and not its zoning policies?
Lost_In_Translation | December 12, 2006, 4:06pm | #
John,What, besides taxes and housing, makes New York and San Francisco hostile to the middle class. Just because people really really want to live there, does that mean the middle class is being discriminated against?
What that tells me is that the people living in those cities want to keep living there while more people want to live there while people in Houston are constantly moving in and out as they find bigger, better deals. Also, look at the areas around San Fran and New York and you find it hard for new development (mountains, more existing development) whereas I look around Houston and see more flat, developable land, so as long as people keep building, prices remain depressed anyway.
Lost_In_Translation | December 12, 2006, 4:09pm | #
John,it is typical corruption and is more of a side comment. I really don't think the city of Houston can be given zoning power as it can't even get its own house in order, but in principle zoning works if you start out with it. Like I said, Houston has evolved to the point where zoning is impossible, but I still lament the wretched effects of not thinking ahead.
Paul | December 12, 2006, 4:10pm | #
I felt that his discussion of mass-transit is very interesting. Enough to make me want to read his book.I think that a much overlooked aspect of mass-transit, especially in newer, western cities such as Portland or Seattle, mass-transit has conceptually evolved from people-movers to symbols of intent. There was a time, historically speaking that sole purpose of mass-transit was to move large numbers of people efficiently and quickly. This is what I call the New York version of transit. However, in Western cities where mass-transit is a recent or developing phenom, the word "sacrifice" is often used in conjunction with the development of any transit system- especially when discussing fix-line or rail systems.
When your urban planners are telling you they're improving your life, and at the same time repeating the words "sacrifice", be very, very skeptical.
John | December 12, 2006, 4:10pm | #
"What, besides taxes and housing, makes New York and San Francisco hostile to the middle class."The fact that rent control and zoning has made the development of new housing stock virtually impossible. You can say, "there is only so much space" when talking about San Fran, but NYC is huge and so is the entire bay area. There is no reason for housing to be as expensive as it is. Anti-growth zoning makes it impossible for anyone but the rich and the poor to live there.
John | December 12, 2006, 4:13pm | #
Lost,Isn't the fact that so many people are able to run businesses out of their homes a good thing? If all of those people had to find buildings for their businesses rather than duel using their homes, chances are a lot of them wouldn't be in business and the economy and society would be a lot poorer for it. Yeah, the city maybe a disorganized mess, but I think the huge numbers of businesses that wouldn't otherwise be there are a pretty good side effect.
Matt | December 12, 2006, 4:14pm | #
The headline numbers on congestion that people come up with -- billions and billions of hours spent in traffic -- if you actually calculate it, for most people it works out to be a few minutes a day.Jesse, this is demonstrable bullshit, and you, as a Baltimore resident so close to The Soulsucking DC Beltway, know better. Should've called him on it.
P Brooks | December 12, 2006, 4:14pm | #
"Do you realize how many people operate businesses out of their houses in Houston, whether its daycare, selling tires, car repair, building furiniture, etc?"EGAD! Dastardly, perfidious, entrepreneurial louts! They ought all to be wearing tasteful suits and shiny shoes, and commuting in nice, new cars to well-manicured office parks.
John | December 12, 2006, 4:17pm | #
"Jesse, this is demonstrable bullshit, and you, as a Baltimore resident so close to The Soulsucking DC Beltway, know better. Should've called him on it."Matt,
Short of having some Soviet system where everyone is assigned a job and a house nearby, what exactly do you plan to do about that problem? We have lots of people and that is going to create crowded streets. I have on idea that might help; shut off the border and deport the 11 million or so illegals in this country. But that is a different thread. The point is that people act like the country being crowded is somehow the result of lack of planning rather than just the reality of a growing population.
Lost_In_Translation | December 12, 2006, 4:18pm | #
Another comment to Jesse.Nuisance law is a longstanding part of the common law. Zoning was a product of the Progressive Era. Rather different sources.
As for people knowing how to make a good investment, you're the one whose parents bought a house in Houston. Not that this was a bad choice -- I haven't looked up the inflation rate, but it sounds to me like their property's value has stayed roughly stable -- but it obviously wasn't a way to get rich.
Finally, could we drop the red herring about externalities? If you'd read the interview, you'd find this passage:
Yes, I read that passage, and its true that developers have contracts within their developments, something that's helped keep sections of residential within the city very nice. I know theres alot of hositility to HOA's, but they do work in keeping everybody civil as long as everybody participates. Its a nice private contract away from the government. However, thats why Houston looks like pockets of nice areas surrounded by areas of ugliness. I contrast that to the city of Atlanta, which I deem to be a much more livable city with good planning and good use of commercial versus residential areas with industrial centers located away from both.
John | December 12, 2006, 4:19pm | #
"I contrast that to the city of Atlanta, which I deem to be a much more livable city with good planning and good use of commercial versus residential areas with industrial centers located away from both."I beg to differ. I live in Atlanta and lived in Texas for seven years. Atlanta is every bit as spralled out and full of ugly neighborhoods as Houston. I see Atlanta as just a less vibrant version of Houston with more street bums than any city outside of India should ever have.
John, well now we've at least acknowledged the problem, eh? I dont know what to do about it, but saying it doesnt exist is an offensive lie.
fletch | December 12, 2006, 4:23pm | #
LiT-Because its considered esentially an open lot free to any sort of development, we could have a fucking warehouse built up to 2 feet from our fencline and send our house value into a black hole.
Perhaps your parents should buy that lot, rather than trying to tell the other owner what he is allowed to do with his property...
John | December 12, 2006, 4:24pm | #
"John, well now we've at least acknowledged the problem, eh? I dont know what to do about it, but saying it doesnt exist is an offensive lie."That is true and that is why I am against open borders. Living in a country with 400 million people would suck.
Lost_In_Translation | December 12, 2006, 4:26pm | #
John,There is debate that running a business out of your home is fine, but without regulation, you have hazards that you didn't buy in on existing next to you. Take a guy that runs a mechanic shop in his backyard. How is he disposing of the chemicals he uses? What is he doing with all the broken parts? Is there a tire pile building up next to your fence near a vat of used oil and an ignition source. What about a lady that runs an unlicensed day care center. Not to think of the children (because everyone else is thinking about them anyway), but what about the hygiene of her center, is she housing too many children and causing a health hazard by having sick kids come and go? Is she allowing the kids to run around in the backyard and cause damage to other people's property? Without knowing these things, hazards are exposed to neighbors without any recourse other than to try and have the city shut them down by proving they are violating other ordinances. I think its better that these issues be taken out of all areas and concentrated where they can be better patrolled, hence zoning.
John | December 12, 2006, 4:28pm | #
Lost,You are confusing zoning regulation with health regulation. Just because you can run a business out of your home doesn't mean you should be or are immune from other forms of regulation.
John's kind of right. Atlanta and Houston are both insufferable parking lots. Atlanta wins in my book because it's close to cool stuff. I like the music better in Atlanta and the food in Houston.
Paul | December 12, 2006, 4:29pm | #
[...]Houston with more street bums than any city outside of India should ever have.You, sir, have never been to San Francisco.
John | December 12, 2006, 4:32pm | #
"[...]Houston with more street bums than any city outside of India should ever have.You, sir, have never been to San Francisco."
Probably so. God I hate the bums. Some of them are really mentally ill and can't help themselves. Those I feel sorry for and hate the fact that our society refuses to care for them. The rest are just pieces of shit who would rather beg than work. Those, I would like to round up and give them a choice between jail and a program that gives them work and a place to live.
John | December 12, 2006, 4:38pm | #
"Atlanta wins in my book because it's close to cool stuff."Like what? Rual Georgia? Northern Florida? Hillbilly, North Carolina?
tchiers | December 12, 2006, 4:41pm | #
Ah, Lost_In_Translation, another "Houstonian self-loather" who does not, in fact, live in Houston.You know, you guys are free to incorporate and then bring your own zoning ordinance, if you'd like.
Number 6 | December 12, 2006, 4:42pm | #
New York is expensive for a number of reasons, and zoning laws are almost certainly part of the problem. Rent control is an even bigger part. Also, when you're talking about Manhattan (which people usually are when they talk about the cost of housing in NY) you are absolutely talking about a finite area of land. It's an island, you know.It's simplistic to suggest that zoning laws are the only, or even the predominant factor there. As for San Fran, I can't comment. I've never been there and don't know much about it. I'd assume that the city's well-known love of regulation has a lot to do with high costs.
But Lost_In_Translation does have a fair point. While I'm no fan of Planning and Zoning (I cover those meetings, and defy you to find a better example of petty mendacity, neighbor-fucking, and cronyism anywhere), I do think that there's probably some place for zoning. Requiring developers, like in Lost's nightmare Wal-Mart scenario, to compensate landowners for their action's effects on property values is a possible solution, but the opportunities for corruption and shafting of the regular Joe are just too high. Better to set some boundaries and be done with it.
Remember, part of the reason San Francisco's housing is so expensive is that most of the city is under a 3-story maximum height restriction. SF doesn't want its old Victorian housing torn down; tourists and wealthy existing landowners are more important than making housing affordable. If you replaced them with highrises and thereby allowed sufficient density the housing supply problem goes away. Also, there's quite a bit of undeveloped land in SF but the city won't approve any new development. The same goes for the South Bay, where thousands of acres in Santa Clara county are either owned by the county or under a development moratorium.
Also, don't forget that SF extorts in excess of $100k/unit in "developer fees" and "city beautification" projects before any project is approved or even a blade of dirt is turned.
Lamar | December 12, 2006, 4:52pm | #
"Like what? Rual Georgia? Northern Florida? Hillbilly, North Carolina?"200+ miles to Nashville, the mountains (snowboarding/skiing) and uh, Jimmy Carter? I'm running out of things here. Did I mention that the food in Houston is good?
Bob Smith- Thanks, I figured the San Fran problem was something like that. Pure stupidity, but not an indictment of zoning as a concept.
Number 6 | December 12, 2006, 5:02pm | #
Lamar- There's also this cool mountain just outside Atlanta. Someone carved a bunch of civil war crap on one side, but the hike up the back is challenging, and the view is not bad.I'm also out of ideas now. The ocean's not that far away, I guess.
How is what San Francisco doing "pure stupidity" since SF is one of America's most desirable and beautiful cities? If anything, they're smart for not allowing anybody looking for a buck to tear down their historic buildings in favor of ugly high-rises. Why aren't people leaving in droves if it's so awful there?
It is incorrect to say that Houston has no development restrictions. Deed restrictions are prevelent and well enforced in the "nicer parts of town" and many areas are master planned communities with development restrictions created by the developing enity.
grumpy realist | December 12, 2006, 5:20pm | #
Also note that San Francisco is on a peninsula, so the amount of land available is also finite.Most compact cities are that way for a reason: geographic limitations.
And anyone who starts bitching about public transportation vs. cars should visit Tokyo. There's a reason people get around by train, not by car. With 20 million people in the Tokyo-Yokohama megapolis, there's no way people could commute by car. You can't even purchase one until you prove you have a place to park it.
Tokyo is weird when it comes to zoning--access out to roads from chunks of land used for private houses have to be guaranteed, but aside from that, it looks like a total hodgepodge. I think there's zoning, but of the kind "you can't get a permit to build until you prove you can hook up to sewage, running water, and electricity." The rest? Heck, I had melon fields on one side of my house and a schoolyard on the other. There did use to be a height restriction similar to that in California and for the same reason: earthquakes. Now if the construction is reinforced concrete, the limits are much higher.
Dakota | December 12, 2006, 5:23pm | #
Cab | December 12, 2006, 2:42pm | #"Zoning is an issue where I veer a little bit from hardcore libertarians. I think zoning has a place in society. Restricting where a gas station goes (or the proverbial pig farm) is no different than restricting what type of fence your neighbor can put up. Of course I would argue less zoning is better than more, but I would also argue some zoning is better than none."
I totally agree. Zoning, public libraries, and impressive public spaces (Central Park, Monuments, Museums) are the only times I really have trouble reconciling my libertarian disposition and my sense of the "way things should be".
But then again the LP uses a "public work" as their symbol, maybe we all have problems sticking to the dogma 24/7 :)
pinko | December 12, 2006, 5:24pm | #
"Have you ever tried to get across town in DC?"There is no place in DC that I can't get to in under 30 minutes. My ride...a steel-framed Schwinn.
spur | December 12, 2006, 6:24pm | #
"Remember, part of the reason San Francisco's housing is so expensive is that most of the city is under a 3-story maximum height restriction. SF doesn't want its old Victorian housing torn down; tourists and wealthy existing landowners are more important than making housing affordable."There is another reason for the height restriction mind you -- something called earthquakes -- would you rather be in a two-story house or a 26 story high rise apartment when the big one hits?
Also a lot of the foundation soil in SF (Sunset for example) just isn't suitable for big buildings, especially considering the earthquake risk.
Lost_In_Translation | December 12, 2006, 7:14pm | #
spur,thank you for pointing out another good reason to zone, environmental concerns. I think people look at zoning overall and relate it back to the one neighbor that won't let you put the satellite dish on your house. Its more than that, its about foresight into arranging things so that everyone can live where they want to. I do believe zoning can be done in harmony with people, as long as everyone is compensated. The benefit future generations get from it therefore will not be born by current residers. Zoning, like industry regulation, is a very good thing as long as it is done fairly and I think everyone should have a say in zoning, but I still firmly believe in it and I think Houston would have been better off with it.
Lost_In_Translation | December 12, 2006, 7:19pm | #
tchiers,I lived in Houston for many years and will likely be back soon as my job will be there. But when people who live elsewhere decide that Houston is the libertarian utopia because it demonstrates the natural ordering of business due to lack of zoning, I have to roll my eyes at that glee, as they do not understand the downside to the complete freedom of building. Its not that Houston is a complete slum like inner city Detroit has become, because it is a vibrant commercial and industrial center, but lack of zoning hasn't led to some sort of crown jewel in development. There are plenty of empty buildings with crime eminating from them to attest to that.
Shelby | December 12, 2006, 8:04pm | #
The ocean's not that far away, I guess.Ask General Sherman. It's a long way to walk, especially if you're stopping to burn everything in sight.
Lost_In_Translation | December 12, 2006, 8:14pm | #
John,Re: Health Regulation
Established businesses operating in a business district are much easier to regulate and govern than someone running a business out of a residential address. Also, equipping of residences with business level facilities is not always possible, just look at the difficulty in even bringing old houses up to modern fire code.
Matt L | December 12, 2006, 9:55pm | #
There is another reason for the height restriction mind you -- something called earthquakes -- would you rather be in a two-story house or a 26 story high rise apartment when the big one hits?Also a lot of the foundation soil in SF (Sunset for example) just isn't suitable for big buildings, especially considering the earthquake risk.
Depends on the building. I'd rather be in a 26 story high rise built in 2006 than a 2 story house built in 1906.
As for the foundation soils, there are ways to improve the soil or build a foundation to mitigate earthquake effects.
tchiers | December 12, 2006, 10:07pm | #
A lack of zoning in Houston doesn't mean businesses can go anywhere or always be profitable any more than a lack of rent control means landlords can charge anything for rent or always keep tenants. Market and other regulatory forces still apply.Deed restrictions fulfill the market desire to prevent undesirable development or uses with one important difference. Deed restrictions must be mutually beneficial, because any property owner can opt out when the restrictions are created. Zoning can be, and often is, a unilateral edict.
The lack of zoning means that development can't be crippled with that particular club. It's no accident that Houston's housing costs are 25% below the national average for large urban areas. They're even 6% below costs in Dallas, a large Texas city with similar geography, but a more restrictive legal environment.
Houston is not by any means a perfect city, but claiming that it would have been better with zoning is just silly.
Lost_In_Translation | December 13, 2006, 12:07am | #
25% lower doesn't equate to 25% better, and considering the massive building spree developers have been doing in Houston for the past decade, they better damn well be 25% lower, do to supply and demand. and wow, a whole 6% lower than Dallas, whose organization and traffic are a shitton better than Houston. I'm practically overwhelmed by surprise. So creating a vastly more efficient city with much nicer urban area and services costs 6%, fuck, I'd choose Dallas every day of the week and funday. The success of Houston, however, does point to a general unconcern about lack of organization. Good for them. Given a choice, I'll pick another city.Lost_In_Translation | December 13, 2006, 12:11am | #
Joe must have taken the day off the internet. I can't believe he read this article and chose to remain silent.Ammonium | December 13, 2006, 12:33am | #
When my parents lived in Houston they complained that the lack of zoning allowed a gas station to be built at the entrance of the subdivision.My parents now live in Omaha, which has zoning. Somebody just built a gas station outside the entrance to the subdivision, even though the land had been zoned residential. And unlike Houston, Omaha has hills, so you can see the gas station lighting up the night sky from half the neighborhood.
In most places, the developers are going to do what the developers want to do. It's just with zoning they can basically enforce collusion by enforcing rules that maximize their profits and disallow the possibility of competition lowering land prices.
Lost_In_Translation | December 13, 2006, 12:46am | #
sounds more like a violation of law, did they pursue the problem to see if the developers violated the zoning laws?If not, then those are barely laws at all and why bother if no enforcement is going to happen. A good zoning council should have stood up to that. But then again, they're human and prone to the same stupidities that make zoning laws necessary in the first place.
Atleast your parents could pursue it if there is a law on the books, it gives them a better leg to stand on than just saying "well, i never wanted a gas station there, so its a nuisance"
Anti-Whining League | December 13, 2006, 12:58am | #
"Given a choice, I'll pick another city."What are you waiting for?
There is no "E" in | December 13, 2006, 2:14am | #
"ridiculous"jf | December 13, 2006, 2:26am | #
Funny how all you big-city dwellers whine and complain, and how all you non-big-city dwellers talk about how bad the big cities are.I swear, if it weren't for the state of Ohio passing BS anti-liberty laws like the new smoking ban, I'd say I live in the greatest libertarian city of them all: Akron, Ohio.
Then again, our mayor (who is sadly about to leave us for a job with Governor-Elect Ted Strickland, and for me that fact alone had I known it would have been worth getting off of the couch and voting for the execrable Ken Blackwell) has run this city like the economy has been booming forever, what with his trips to Europe and China to bring new business here. With the sole exception of some minor eminent domain battles (most notably to help car dealerships expand their lots) I'd say Akron should be the base of the "Free City Movement". It's one hell of a place to live (if you can stand the weather).
Timon19 | December 13, 2006, 5:17am | #
jf,The weather "builds character". The roads keep all the mechanics and tire stores in business.
I've never heard someone talk so positively about Our Cloudy-ass City before.
It's weird.
Jesse Walker | December 13, 2006, 9:17am | #
Joe must have taken the day off the internet. I can't believe he read this article and chose to remain silent.Yeah, where is he? I can't believe we've had over 90 comments about zoning without any thoughts from ol' Joe.
Eric the .5b | December 13, 2006, 11:16am | #
The real question is whether he still complains about nobody but him discussing zoning the next time he jumps into a planning-related thread. ;)Jose Ortega y Gasset | December 13, 2006, 12:11pm | #
I dropped a brief note to the author and found him gracious in reply. I, for one, plan to buy the book and think the author makes some interesting points. As a person who works with (and around) zoning, I can say with some measure of authority that it is one of the lesser obstacles to development or redevelopment. Environmental regulations are the hybrid vehicle of choice for BANANAs. Zoning, my dear friends, is an antiquated regulatory scheme almost quaint compared to TMDLs.tchiers | December 13, 2006, 1:00pm | #
Well, LIT, what can I say? If you do decide to leave Spring and come back to Houston proper, without pouting about us anti-zoning rubes, you'll find a thriving city where the cost of living won't eat you alive. And if you really do prefer Dallas for it's allegedly vastly superior traffic, organization, and urban spaces, the good news is you're already halfway there!On the other hand, if you know of a place with the geography of San Francisco, the weather of San Diego, the public transit of NYC, the historical and cultural gravitas of Boston, the live music and friendly attitude of Austin, with Houston's restaurants and cost of living, let me know. I'll move there in a heartbeat.
Bob Smith | December 13, 2006, 7:32pm | #
High-rises aren't necessarily ugly. Sure, those built in the 50s and 60s in Lefrak City in NY are, but nobody builds like that anymore. The newer highrises in NY and Chicago are architectural marvels. Also, lots of those "historic buildings" are neither historic nor desirable, they're really just dumps that need to be torn down and replaced but can't.
How is what San Francisco doing "pure stupidity" since SF is one of America's most desirable and beautiful cities? If anything, they're smart for not allowing anybody looking for a buck to tear down their historic buildings in favor of ugly high-rises.
Andrew | December 13, 2006, 10:01pm | #
Having lived in Houston for 9 months after Katrina, mostly in the area around the medical district, I have to say that the major problems of the city are not the result of zoning, but the misguided attempts of the government to interfere with otherwise functioning system. For instance, someone decided it was a good idea to lay one rail track in each direction, taking up and often closing off most of Main street (connects medical center and downtown). In addition, you have to cut off said train to make a left turn. This could only have been produced in a city with a government trying to connect sports complexes to bring in more outside business with no regard for the actual city. Plus every damn traffic light has 8 cycles- making every journey 20 minutes minimum...Definitely not the paradise of no zoning we hoped it would be, but its probably the limited interference of government that has caused the problems, not the lack of such interference.
