Upcoming Event on "Solving the Nation's Housing Crisis"

Economist Bryan Caplan and I will speak at event sponsored by the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University.

(Schar School, George Mason University.)

On March 4, 12-1 PM, the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University will hold an event on "Solving the Nation's Housing Shortage." The event is open to the public, and you can get details about time and location, and sign up here.

I will be speaking along with economist Bryan Caplan (George Mason University), author of Build, Baby, Build: The Science and Ethics of Housing. Bryan will discuss his book,  which addresses the causes of the housing crisis, and potential solutions. I will speak about how exclusionary zoning - the most significant cause of our housing shortage - violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and how judicial review can help address the problem. These issues are covered in greater detail in my recent Texas Law Review article on exclusionary zoning (coauthored with Josh Braver).

Comments

[Consarnit]

Can't wait to hear how massive increases in "skilled" immigrant visas fits into the equation.

[Longtobefree]

How to solve the nation's housing crisis:
Step one. Get all levels of government out of housing decisions.
Step two. Mission accomplished.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Shouldn't even need to say Step two.

[AmosArch]

Maybe we should give up on the idea that everybody needs to live in LA or New York or a handful of other megacities. People have been cooped up so long that even if they've been living in America ll their lives few really know just how big it is. Theres tons upon tons of space of every imaginable type that could be had for dirt cheap. The everything of importance only happens in one or two cities strategy isn't working that well for Europe either.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Simple: Ship them all home...

[Lee Moore]

Easier said than done. For those of us who are 1/1024 Cherokee, you'd have to ship us home, but leaving a toe behind.

[AmosArch]

I'm of the opinion that mass deportations are unnecessary and all we have to do is change the incentives for the vast majority to leave. But the wailing and gnashing of teeth and the lengths the other side has gone to fight the deportation of serious violent criminal (aside from immigration) illegals every step of the way shows a serious roadblock to what should otherwise be a very simple and elegant solution.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We could change the discrimination laws.

I think we should seriously consider re-legalizing racial discrimination against immigrants, as was always done in the past.

Why do you think that immigrants changed their names? Why do you think they learned English and attempted to adopt "American" ways?

Those Americans loved America the way it was -- current immigrants don't. Those immigrants are invaders in that they want to conquer America and subvert it to their culture and values.

[David Nieporent]

I think we should seriously consider re-legalizing racial discrimination against immigrants, as was always done in the past.

Is this more, or less, appalling than his calls for murder and his applause for rape?

[ReaderY]

I think there is some merit to some of Professor Somin’s policy arguments on zoning. However, I would frame the argument as saying that previous attempts at zoning regulation overreached to the point of doing more net harm to society than good, and accordingly should be downsized, perhaps significantly, as better policy based on lessons learned from experience.

There is no shame in learning from experience and admitting ones previous assumptions were wrong. Indeed the whole “laboratory” aspect of a federal system is to enable different jurisdictions to try different things, and fail at and reconsider some of them, without failure bringing the whole society down in one crash.

That said, I disagree with the constitutional arguments. Current zoning laws may be unwise and bad policy, but they certainly have a rational basis. Moreover, constitutionalizing ordinary policy debates has very negative side effects. It tends to lead people to view policy in all-or-nothing, black vs. white, good vs. evil terms. And it leads them to demonize their political opponents, and the losing side of court decisions, as being bad Americans, against the constitution, bigots, etc.

For this reason, I don’t find Professor Somin’s observations that supporters of zoning were and are racists etc. especially helpful. A habit of maximally demonizing those who disagree with one on policy matters is destroying this country. We have to relearn how to discuss and disagree on policy without doing that. The habit of incorporating ones favorite policy positions into the constitution has, I fear, had a great deal to do with the abyss of division that we now face.

[Roger S]

Both authors are big promoters of open borders, and of importing hundreds of millions of foreigners. The housing crisis is simply supply and demand. We have too many people for the housing supply.

They say they are Libertarians, but they are the opposite. They seek to destroy the American standard of living, and force us all to live in overcrowded neighborhoods, with undesirable aliens. Here they want to eliminate the freedom to live in a zoned community.

[ReaderY]

Professor Somin’s position really is a variant of libertarianism, agree with it or not. You might call it universalist libertarianism.

What exactly is “America?” To Professor Somin, “America” is essentially a government, and like all libertarians Professor Somin thinks that governments should not only be relatively small but unimportant in people’s lives. He takes this idea to its logical conclusion: one doesn’t identify oneself with fundamentally unimportant things. With “America” merely a government, it is not a legitimate source of identity, I suspect Professor Somin would identify himself, and us, as primarily human beings. National divisions are, to him, pretty similar to the way he regards racial, ethnic, or tribal divisions, or which sports team one roots for; primitive stuff that may entertain and provide some culture, but which ought not to be fundamentally important to civilized human beings.

As a universalist, Professor Somin believes in liberty for everyone, not just Americans. The individual is what is findamentally important.

Although an atheist, and with no belief in immortality of the soul, I suspect Professor Somin would nonetheless fundamentally agree, for different reasons, with the gist of this quote from the Christian lay theologian C.S. Lewis in his sermon “The Weight of Glory”:

“There are no ORDINARY people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Natures, cultures, arts, civilization - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals that we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit.”

Although for radically different reasons, to Professor Somin the individual is also what is fundamentally real, fundamentally important, fundamentally lasting, with a nation a mere nothing in comparison, an ephemeral fiction cooked up by human beings, much as C.S. Lewis described it.

[ReaderY]

I also suspect that Professor Somin would also agree with this quote from the same sermon:

“We are half-hearted creatures…like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by an offer of a holiday at the sea.”

[Roger S]

No, Somin is not universalist or pro-liberty for everyone. He wants Americans to give up liberties in order to benefit foreigners.

A universalist libertarian might require the foreigners to pay for the asset transfer that he proposes. But no, he is against that. It would be more accurate to describe him as an anti-American Marxist.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I really liked your thoughts. I would like to read Prof. Somin's response if he were to feel inclined to do so.

I feel inclined to write a lengthy opinion on theoretical "universal libertarianism" versus realities. It is late for me and it seems a waste of time to give much thought in posting shit nobody will read. Let's just say I am fine with open borders, or unfettered and unregulated drug use, but a limited government can't deal with the consequences. Nobody on this site, no matter how libertarian, says let children of illegals and drug users die in the street because... limited government. You can't have your pie...

If Prof. Somin is fine with illegal immigrants' children dying in the streets because we didn't provide food or housing, let him say that. He doesn't say it because he knows no such thing can be a reality.
He wants a limited government that can't restrict movement, but not so limited they can't confiscate my wealth to give to others. But hey!!! They make it up 2-3 generations. Except we now have even more that take another 2-3 generations.

You simply can't have a welfare state limited government and an open border.

[ReaderY]

The quote is “NATIONS, cultures…” sorry for the typo, but that first word is critical.

[M L]

"Universalist libertarian" is not bad as a description of how Somin fancies himself. In reality, "globalist libertarian" would be a better description if he can be described as any sort of libertarian.

He has proved to be quite supportive of "bigger government" in a certain sense, where he thinks the bigger government is forcing smaller, more local governments to be more "libertarian" in his conception. Of course the problem with that is creating the bigger government power in the first place is a problem for liberty - it's still force, and it's not self-government to boot, even if you think the power is being used to do good libertarian things. Beyond that once the bigger government power is created it will probably be turned in another direction eventually. It's this Futurama quote yet again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ig2qZEiNv8

I remember one of these Somin/Caplan posts where they did a "study" that if you piled a hundred times more people on top of San Francisco, productivity would 100x, because that spot is some kind of magic productivity soil or something. Really just laughable stuff all around, but then again, so is "libertarianism" generally as seen today, when taken as some unifying theory as opposed to just a general direction relative to today's status quo.

[M L]

Step 1. Increase demand by flooding the country with hundreds of millions of immigrants, all of whom will presumably want housing rather than living outdoors.

Step 2. ???

Step 3. Profit.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Every leaving illegal immigrant frees up some housing.
All reduction of govt waste brings inflation down.
All amendment of poor schooling gives us a usable workforce.
All reduction drug usage and trafficking takes the bonds off someone and whoever cares about someone.
PURE TRUMP