Over at NewGeography.com, Wendell Cox, author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life, makes the case that one of the two main reasons for the financial crisis was "excessive land use regulation which helped drive prices up in many of the most impacted markets." An excerpt:
Profligate lending increased the demand for housing. This demand, however, produced far different results in different metropolitan areas, depending in large part upon the micro-economic factor of land use regulation. In some metropolitan markets, land use restrictions propelled prices and led to severely higher mortgage exposures. On the other hand, where land regulation was not so severe, in the traditionally regulated markets, there were only modest increases in relative house prices. If the increase in mortgage exposures around the country had been on the order of those sustained in traditionally regulated markets, the financial losses would have been far less. This "two-Americas" nature of the housing bubble was noted by Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman more than three years ago. Krugman noted that the US housing bubble was concentrated in areas with stronger land use regulation. Indeed, the housing bubble is by no means pervasive. Krugman and others have identified the single identifiable difference. The bubble – the largest relative housing price increases – occurred in metropolitan markets that have strong restrictions on land use (called "smart growth," "urban consolidation," or "compact city" policy). Metropolitan markets that have the more liberal and traditional land use regulation experienced little relative increase in housing prices. Unlike the more strongly regulated markets, the traditionally regulated markets permitted a normal supply response to the higher market demand created by the profligate lending. This disparate price performance is evidence of a well established principle of economics in operation – that shortages and rationing lead to higher prices.
Among the 50 metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population, 25 have significant land use restrictions and 25 are more liberally regulated. The markets with liberal land use regulation were generally able to absorb from the excess of profligate lending at historic price norms (Median Multiple, or median house price divided by median household income, of 3.0 or less), while those with restrictive land use regulation were not.
Moreover, the demand was greater in the more liberal markets, not the restrictive markets. Since 2000, population growth has been at least four times as high in the traditional metropolitan markets as in the more regulated markets. The ultimate examples are liberally regulated Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the developed world with more than 5,000,000 population, where prices have remained within historic norms. Indeed, the more restrictive markets have seen a huge outflow of residents to the markets with traditional land use regulation (see: http://www.demographia.com/db-haffmigra.pdf).