As requested Zoning ordininces. Ignore it if you are bored of the topic.

[Flex]

This is a topic opened by me at the request of ShaneK.
From ShaneK Tell you what: why don't you go here and start a thread rebutting it?

I previously suggested that he should open this topic as he appeared to feel so strongly about the subject. He instead suggested I read his short essay (~1200 word) on the problems of zonings and open my own thread. Judging by the amount of argument he seems to attract on various debates on the JREF site, maybe his reluctance to open his own thread on zoning ordinances is reasonable.

It is very possible that ShaneK has already discussed his concern with zoning ordinances enough times to make readers sick. I suggest that if you are tired of this debate, you just ignore this thread.

Finally, I fully admit that my area of expertise is not in law or politics. I have concentrated my studies on engineering and philosophy for many years, and have spent a great deal of time on the problem of consciousness. I am just starting to get involved in politics, and I have a pragmatic approach to the subject.

ShaneK seems to have a great deal of conviction about his beliefs, and an idealistic view of what the world should be. I have no trouble with that, especially as he shows some evidence that he is aware that idealism occasionally needs to be reduced to practicality.

So let’s talk zoning codes.

I am not going to reproduce ShaneK’s short essay in full. However, after being requested to comment about it, I do have a few comments.

It does, however, stifle the local economy and keep away potential businesses, it discriminates against lower-income people, it absorbs a lot of money from the system, and it prevents property owners from using their property as is their right. In this article, I examine these issues closely and present evidence showing that the zoning ordinance must be eliminated.

You make 5 claims in the opening paragraph.
1. Stifles local economy
2. Keeps away potential business
3. Discriminates against low income people
4. Absorbs money from the system
5. Prevents property owners from using their property.

The evidence you provide for these claims is all anecdotal, but let’s look at it anyway.

1. Stifles local economy. The one example provided in the essay is where a restaurateur was denied the right to build a restaurant to by County Commissioners. The reason given in the essay was that a single individual opposed it so the zoning change was disallowed.

I have reviewed the minutes where the refusal to rezone occurred. They are available on-line. The planning board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of zoning map amendment no. 452. The Commissioners discussed the fact of alcoholic beverage sales. One of the Commissioners mentioned that in the public hearing concerns about alcoholic beverage sales and traffic issues were discussed. The chairman stated that the Board of Commissioners couldn’t prevent any trouble arising from increased traffic or the sales of alcoholic beverages. A person not a member of the County Commission spoke against the re-zoning, and may well have used the arguments listed in your essay. The Board of Commissioners voted against the zoning change.

What are the reasons given by the various board members as to why they voted one way or the other? You make a claim that it was due to personal political connections. It may have been, but there is no evidence for it. There are other possible reasons for the Board of Commissioners refusing the rezoning, including arguments about traffic flow or an increased public hazard from the increased traffic flow.

To continue with your argument, in another paragraph, you claim
no business is going to move into an area with draconian zoning laws when they can go elsewhere where they are given greater freedom from the high cost of compliance. Your essay provides no evidence about the cost of compliance, high or otherwise. It also doesn’t explain why businesses regularly do move into places with zoning laws.

Further, you claim According to the John Locke Foundation, only 16% of North Carolina business owners consider zoning to have a positive rate of return. That means the county is keeping away up to 84% of the potential businesses that could move to the county just by keeping the zoning ordinance intact. It is a leap of logic to take a subjective measure, “16% of North Carolina business owners consider zoning to have a positive rate of return.� covering an entire state, and say it means that the inverse of it is a statement of fact locally, “keeping away 84% of potential businesses that could move to the county.�

So, claim 1 is unproven. I am not concerned about proving the reverse, i.e. zoning laws encourage the local economy, but I can provide an argument that zoning laws do stimulate local economies. They define the local playing field for businesses. Businesses, in general, do not like uncertainty. Zoning laws eliminate much of that uncertainty by defining the minimum standards of behavior in that community. Basic requirements for fire prevention, public health and sanitation, the types of businesses which may be engaged in, and often a community development plan is available showing the long range goals of that community. A community which has defined how much development is going to allowed, and what areas of the community are going to develop is going to attract business.

You probably doubt that statement. So I will give a hypothetical example, which I’m certain I could find in my own community if I asked around a bit. Let’s say I’m looking to open a restaurant, and have the opportunity of doing so in several different areas. I can choose one of three locations.

1. A town which has no zoning laws. Obviously the various state laws still apply for public health and fire prevention, but there are no additional zoning laws.
2. A town which has zoning laws in addition to the various state laws.
3. A town with not only zoning laws but a long term planning guide indicating what types of residential, commercial, and industrial areas are planned in the next five and twenty years.

In the first example, I don’t know if five years from now the neighborhood I chose is going to improve or degrade. I may open a family restaurant, and a rendering plant opens next door. There is no certainty that my business is going to do well over time.

In the second example, I can see what the current areas are zoned as, and I can see that no place near the location I chose is zoned for manufacturing, so I can open my family restaurant. On the other hand, if the property right next to the location I chose is zoned for manufacturing, I might choose to open a place less family oriented and more designed for shift workers. The uncertainty is reduced.

Finally, if I know that the area is going to be mainly residential over the next twenty years, and more and more people are going to be moving into the new subdivisions in the area, I can be pretty confidant that a family oriented restaurant will do well over the long haul. My uncertainty about the community is quite low.

Given the above example, I may well choose to move into the area with greater zoning restrictions.

BTW, I looked over the Lincoln County webpages, and it looks like Lincoln County sits right in the type 2 category above. The zoning laws, after a quick review, do not seem unreasonable, but much like the same laws in my own community. The fact that the zoning ordinance is 269 pages does not make it bad. The ordinance covers everything from how to interpret the zoning maps, to how the boards are created, mobile homes, non-conformance rules, outdoor lighting, temporary structures, etc. Considering how many aspects it covers, 269 pages does not seem excessive.

2. Keeps away local business. The only evidence for this claim is the same as claim number 1, stifles local economy. I assume that the reason these are not combined into one claim is that the essay is really an appeal for voters to vote Libertarian.

For the evidence and rebuttal, see claim 1.

3. Discriminates against low income people. I can only see one statement in the essay which attempts to support this claim. … it discriminates against lower-income residents, preventing them from being able to afford a home, and those who want to start their own business from their homes,… In the first part of the statement there are two assumptions built into the support for this claim. First, the assumption that zoning ordinances make homes cost more. Second, the assumption that people are unable to buy a home because of this increased cost.

I might concede the first assumption. After all, it does cost more to build a house with studs on sixteen inch centers, and fire traps between floors. It cost significantly more than a house made of tarpaper and lathe. What is the difference in cost between a well-built and a poorly built home? Even houses that meet the various building codes greatly vary in quality. The final cost of the house is not even a good indication of quality, I’ve walked through houses which cost the owner $300,000 and you can tell that the plywood under the carpeting was exposed to the rain for at least a few weeks. On the other hand, the house I own was built in 1929, cost me about $100,000, and aside from the lack of insulation is very well built. So while in principle I would agree that meeting building codes add cost to a house, practically I suspect that there is little relationship between the cost of the house and the cost of meeting the local zoning ordinances.

The second assumption rests on even shakier ground. Where is the evidence that the increased costs added to a home because of zoning laws is the determining factor between someone being able to buy and not buy a house? Or are we back to the tarpaper example again? Assuming a house is built of reasonable quality, there a certain amount of wood, drywall, paint, copper or PVC tubing, electrical wiring, electrical fixtures, ductwork, doors, windows, bathroom fixtures, etc. are required. Most of these things are now standardized to reduce manufacturing costs, so you couldn’t find a bathtub which doesn’t meet a local zoning ordinance if you tried. (Well, I concede that there may be exceptions, but they are probably rare.) So what is the difference between having to build floors with 2X12’s which are a standard requirement now, and 2X6’s which were allowed back in the 1920’s? Or the difference between studs on 16� centers and studs on 24� centers? At most a few thousand dollars in material. In relationship to the price of a house, it is a percentage point or two.

I seriously question that the cost of a house built in an area with strict zoning laws is much different that the same house built in an area without zoning laws. I also doubt that the difference is enough to be the factor which changes a person’s decision to purchase. “Well honey, if only we lived in a place without zoning laws the house would cost only $118,000 and we could afford it. But we cannot afford $122,000.�

The second part of the statement suggests that zoning laws prevent people from running businesses from their home. Well, the 269 page Lincoln County zoning ordinance has a whole section devoted to getting approval to use property for purposes it is not originally zoned for. Yes, you have to get the forms and jump through some hoops, but the laws don’t prevent people from running businesses from your home, just requires that you get approval to do so. I imagine you would have a greater or lesser success depending on the type of business you wanted to run. A day-care or tax-preparation service would probably be fine. Opening a bar would probably be rejected even if you did get a liquor license.

4. Absorbs money from the system. I can’t see any evidence presented in the essay to support this claim.

5. Prevents property owners from using their property. This is a standard claim of the libertarian party, and it’s a bit disingenuous. Zoning law restricts the uses of property, it doesn’t prevent the use of property. How these restrictions are viewed is greatly dependant on the viewer.

A short discursion on how I see the relationship of the citizens to the state my make my viewpoint a bit clearer. As I see the manifestation of the state, it is composed of citizens. These citizens determine what policies are appropriate to everyone living in the state. Now citizens in our current state include pretty much everyone except minors and certain felons (and as far as I can tell not all of them).

The complete list of alternatives are: One person is a citizen. A few people are citizens. A great number of people are citizens. Most people are citizens. All people are citizens (including minors and resident aliens).

There are hundreds of ways for these groups of citizens to decide which is the right policy for the state. The citizens could all knife fight to decide on the best policy. They could also vote on every issue, and even set the levels required to make a change at different levels. There is nothing preventing a group deciding that if 20% of the members agree on a policy, that policy is enacted and enforced. Having all citizens required to vote on all state policies is inefficient.

The group of citizens could agree to accept the decisions of subgroups. This is, in essence, what we have done in America. We have created sub-groups to create, enforce, and adjudicate, our policies. We have created these sub-groups at all levels of society. In the area of public policy we call these groups government. Many of these people are elected officials. These people are supposed to represent the people in the district which selected them to the various sub-groups. Not just the people in the district who voted for them, but also the people who voted for someone else.

We have agreed to abide by the polices created by these sub-groups, except that we are allowed to challenge these polices in a public forum if we desire.

These policies are unfair to some people. So? The world doesn’t require fairness. In fact, much of the policies are directed at an attempt to level the playing field, to make things more fair for everyone.

Other policies are created to reflect what the majority of people desire within the community they live in. These policies may also be unfair to some. If enough people agree that they are unfair, they can be changed.

The basic Libertarian argument against zoning laws seems to be: Zoning laws restrict property rights and thus are in violation of the Federal Constitution. Invoking the Federal Constitution to change a set of local laws is like using a pile driver to kill a fly. Zoning laws are an agreed upon code within a community. They can be changed, and they can be repealed locally. If you don’t care for what the community agrees with, you have a few options. Ignore the problem, move, or try to change them. If you choose the latter course, joining a group which has a very poor history being in the position to make changes, like the Libertarian Party, is rather poor tactics. I wish you luck, but I suspect you would have made a greater impact by joining the democrat or republican parties. They both are broad enough to accept people with your views.

So the answer to claim 5, which has no evidence in the essay to defend it, is that the claim depends on your point of view.

There is one more claim made in the essay, But probably the biggest cost of zoning is the bad neighbors it encourages. Normally, good neighbors go and talk civilly to each other when they have a problem. With zoning, it’s a completely different story. Sure, there are those who want to stop their neighbors from putting up “eyesores.� But who decides what is an eyesore? …. People become accustomed to being bad neighbors, to use the government to force their way in rather than trying to work it out peacefully first. This isn’t the result of people suddenly becoming evil or antagonistic; it’s merely the result of government. The tool of government is force, and that force is always backed up, sooner or later, by men with guns. If you think you need to go to the government to use the zoning laws against something your neighbor is doing, ask yourself if you would take a gun over to your neighbor’s house and force him at gunpoint to do your bidding. Because when you go to the government, that is exactly what you are doing. You give the example of nativity scenes, which I snipped as I can’t see how they apply.

Is this what you think about when you think about zoning laws? Cut your lawn or we’re sending in the National Guard? Good neighbors do speak to each other when there is a problem. In my experience bad neighbors usually do to, just at a little higher volume. When I think about zoning, I think about the two areas it covers: Public health and safety, and public appearance.

Your claim here is that zoning laws are enforced at the point of a gun. No, zoning laws are enforced at the point of your wallet. If you disregard zoning ordinances you will be fined, fined again, and maybe sent to a short term in jail after repeated offences.

Enough about your essay.
------------

In discussion on the JREF board you have made other claims, and I’m going to repeat some of them here.

From Flex

A deed restriction is not legally enforceable.

From ShaneK
If it's simply restrictions, then enforcing the contract would mean that the previous owner of the property would have to seek redress, as that's who the contract was made with. So most deed restrictions establish a community association to oversee and enforce them; but this must specifically be written into the contract.

Okay, I stand corrected. I deed restriction would require the previous owner, who may not be anywhere nearby, to seek redress. Or a community association could be written into the deed. In what way is the local government not a community association? Just because they are more than just a dozen houses?

It seems to me that you just stated that zoning restrictions, as they are agreed upon by the community, are not legal solely because they are not written into each deed. Couldn’t you look at zoning ordinances as deed restrictions automatically applying to a wide area?

-----
From Flex

Home inspections to ensure proper construction, adequate fire prevention techniques and fire exits, proper wiring to reduce the incidence of fires, livestock restrictions as well as other organic garbage restrictions are all matters of public health and welfare.

From ShaneK
All of which can easily be taken care of by the insurance company covering the house. In fact, even as it is I've seen insurance companies do a lot more towards making homes safer than building codes, which are often outdated and may require a lot of "safety features" that just don't apply to that kind of building.

Funny, the zoning laws in my community say the following:

Sec. 12-36. Adoption of code.
There is hereby adopted by reference as applicable within the City of Farmington Hills, the International Fire Code, 2000 Edition, published by the International Code Council prescribing minimum requirements and controls to safeguard life, property or public welfare from the hazards of fire, or explosions, arising from storage, handling or use of substances, materials or devices and from conditions hazardous to one's life, property or public welfare, and to one's occupancy of buildings, structures, sheds, tents, lots or premises.

As you are undoubtedly aware the International Code Council is not a government organization.

The Lincoln County fire codes are a separate document, which states that that the various NFPA codes along with any applicable North Carolina State laws apply. Maybe you aren’t familiar with NFPA, but it is also a private organization rather than a government agency. Insurance companies do have a lot of input into NFPA. Your local government respects their input and creates the zoning laws around it.

---

From Flex
A house fire does not respect personal freedom, it can burn down a neighborhood. A festering pile of garbage can attract varmints and spread disease. I find it hard to believe that anyone would be against those types of zoning laws.

From ShaneK
Those are basic property rights violations. Using zoning to enforce them is like using a sledgehammer to open a can of beans: even if you do manage to get the can open, you'll cause a lot of damage and make a big mess in the meantime. Zoning laws are there to restrict property rights; it's insane to claim we need them to preserve property rights.

I’m not following you. It’s a basic property right to, say, store an open tank of gasoline in your shed right next to your neighbors house? What other means do we have to prevent this kind of behavior without resorting to heavier laws? Zoning laws are fairly benign. They tell you up front what is acceptable behavior and if you violate it, you get fined.

Damages from negligence are not obvious up front, and negligent mistakes can kill people. It seems to me that the zoning law is a lot less of a sledgehammer than personal liability.

Further, there was nothing in my claim that suggested that zoning laws are preserving property rights. What I said was that zoning laws are often in place to prevent public health hazards.

----

From Flex

The second category of zoning laws relate to what the citizens want their community to look like, how it is presented to the world. [B]

From ShaneK [B]

Ah, yes, communism. Sorry, our country wasn't founded that way. If you want your neighbors to make their houses and yards look a certain way, set up deed restrictions.


Now that’s a bit of a leap. Let’s see, zoning laws = communism. Nope. I still can’t see it. Let’s try again, but replace the zoning laws with an equivalent. Community agreement = communism. Still not there. Let’s add the draconian aspect. Enforced community agreement = communism. I suppose it’s a bit closer, but it’s not communism as we know it. Let’s try changing the other side of the equation a bit. Zoning laws = everyone is treated the same, has the same income, and same goods. Nope. Still can’t get it to balance.

Ah! I know! Let’s use the more totalitarian version of communism.

Zoning laws = a small group of people telling everyone else in the community how it should look.

If that’s what you are getting at, try this:

Business = a small group of people directing everyone else in a community (workplace) how it should operate.

Or maybe you like this one better:

Judiciary = a small group of people telling everyone else in a community how to act.

The fact that you are not part of the group which decides on zoning laws, and that you apparently have tried to join them but the rest of the community decided to select other people to represent them, does not mean that zoning laws are the from ShaneK will of the elite and the politically-connected.

Moving on.

-----
Originally posted by Earthborn

I don't believe for one bit that the government forbids other people from collecting garbage and asking people money for the service.

From ShaneK

I'm not responsible for what you "believe." Municipal governments often give themselves or one particular company exclusive franchise rights to pick up garbage in their area.

Actually Shane is correct about municipalities granting exclusive franchise rights. Backward, but correct. Our own community didn’t get broadband internet access until long after the surrounding communities. Since I live on the border, I seriously considered running a line over the street to my neighbor’s house. The reason for the delay was because all the cable companies in the area refused to provide the service until the municipality agreed to grant exclusive franchise rights.

In other words, the private companies didn’t really care who got the business, so long as one of them got all the business. We waited two years before the municipality finally caved, and Time Warner got an exclusive franchise.

Any claim that any municipality is granting exclusive rights, even to themselves, needs to be investigated. Additional details may reveal that private industry has the municipality over a barrel. Or the municipality may be engaged in unfair business practices and liable for the same. It has been known to happen.

Moving on,

----

There was a wonderful story from Snide about how his grandmother was part of group that built and ran a television signal repeater. Of course, the airwaves are unable to be monitored, so some people took advantage of the signal without paying into the group.

Originally posted by Snide

My grandmother would get so upset at the freeloaders,

From ShaneK
And rightfully so. She would be entirely justified pursuing compensation from them.

Huh? Doesn’t this example refute the libertarian idea that all goods and services currently provided by the public sector can be provided by the private sector at a lower cost? Oh, wait a minute, you make the assumption that the public sector is less efficient so the costs are higher. You also make the assumption that private sector doesn’t get greedy and increase the price of goods or services to as high as the market will bear.

I know, I know. You have responses to those statements. First, you claim that it is well known that the public sector is grossly inefficient. Second, you claim that in a completely free economy another business will form to drive the prices down.
The first claim is variable, some public sector jobs seem to be inefficient, but that’s not proof that all of them are. The second claim is nonsense, there are both barriers to entry into an established industry (usually established by industries not governments), and no reason to suppose that prices will drop even if supply increases.

Finally, after all the statements about contracts, you have to admit that those free-loaders never signed an agreement to pay for the tower. Are we creating new law now?

Originally posted by Snide

Also, it's obvious that it wouldn't have had to be $100 if everyone did pitch in. Sort of like a built-in price mark-up, like retailers have to pass on to consumers because of theft, bad debts, etc.

From ShaneK

That's absolutely correct. Realistically, she selected a price so that the system could continue despite the fact that there were those she could never get the payment from. Corporations do this exact thing all the time. As you pointed out, whenever you buy something at a store, you're paying just a tiny bit more for it than you would if there were no shoplifters. It's unfortunate, but it's the most efficient way of dealing with it.

Okay, it seems the most efficient way to deal with free loaders is to mark up the price for paying customers. It seems to me that in this case the people who get screwed are the customers.

I don’t know, to me it seems that if there is a public need, like a public park, and the risk of free loading is high, a solution is to have the need filled using public money.

Or have a private business run the park, charge money for people to get in and fence the place off to prevent the free loaders from getting in.

And you talk about how zoning ordinances discriminate against low income people?

Maybe you should respond to this in several different posts.

Cheers,

-Flex

P.S. I probably will be unable in the future to devote as much time as I did today to this topic. Please be patient if I get delaying in answering questions or comments. –F.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Flex
The evidence you provide for these claims is all anecdotal, but let’s look at it anyway.

I would just like to point out that, although they are anecdotes, they are all things that happened in the county where I was running for office, so they directly related to my campaign, which is what I wrote the essay for.

I have reviewed the minutes where the refusal to rezone occurred. They are available on-line.
7tes really don't tell you much. The commissioners specifically order the clerk not to put their reasons for voting the way they did into the minutes. I spoke to her about this during the campaign; she told me that she would be happy to do so, in fact, she used to do this until the commissioners told her to stop. I made a bit of a stink about that during the campaign; I see it as an accountability issue.

I was there. I was actually present at the meeting. I know exactly what was said. There's a lot that doesn't make it into the minutes.

[What are the reasons given by the various board members as to why they voted one way or the other? You make a claim that it was due to personal political connections. It may have been, but there is no evidence for it.

Again, I was there. Ms. Ruff is very well connected and the commissioners know her well. But even if you still reject that, the point, that the commissioners acted against the will of the people who said to let businesses sell alcohol, and that it was zoning that allowed them to do this, still stands.

By the way, here's the link to the PDF file of the minutes of the meeting in question:

http://www.lincolncounty.org/PdfFiles/Minutes/min042103.pdf

And here's a news story about the issue in question:

http://www.lincolntimesnews.com/New_04-03/04-09-03_Residence/04-09-03_residence.html

There are other possible reasons for the Board of Commissioners refusing the rezoning, including arguments about traffic flow or an increased public hazard from the increased traffic flow.

None of those were brought up at the meeting. Apparently, the traffic issue was brought up at the planning board meeting (I wasn't at that one), but since they approved it unanimously they obviously didn't feel it was a problem. The only issue the commissioners discussed was the alcohol issue.

To continue with your argument, in another paragraph, you claim Your essay provides no evidence about the cost of compliance, high or otherwise. It also doesn’t explain why businesses regularly do move into places with zoning laws.

That's covered by the John Locke Foundation survey I cited.

Further, you claim It is a leap of logic to take a subjective measure, “16% of North Carolina business owners consider zoning to have a positive rate of return.� covering an entire state, and say it means that the inverse of it is a statement of fact locally, “keeping away 84% of potential businesses that could move to the county.�

I said keeping away up to 84% of potential businesses. If that 84% doesn't feel zoning gives them a positive rate of return, then getting rid of the zoning laws would obviously be an incentive to get them to move to the county.

So, claim 1 is unproven. I am not concerned about proving the reverse, i.e. zoning laws encourage the local economy, but I can provide an argument that zoning laws do stimulate local economies. They define the local playing field for businesses. Businesses, in general, do not like uncertainty. Zoning laws eliminate much of that uncertainty by defining the minimum standards of behavior in that community.

Do you have any kind of evidence for this at all? Because the vast majority of business owners disagree.

Let’s say I’m looking to open a restaurant, and have the opportunity of doing so in several different areas. I can choose one of three locations.

1. A town which has no zoning laws. Obviously the various state laws still apply for public health and fire prevention, but there are no additional zoning laws.
2. A town which has zoning laws in addition to the various state laws.
3. A town with not only zoning laws but a long term planning guide indicating what types of residential, commercial, and industrial areas are planned in the next five and twenty years.

In the first example, I don’t know if five years from now the neighborhood I chose is going to improve or degrade. I may open a family restaurant, and a rendering plant opens next door. There is no certainty that my business is going to do well over time.

In the second example, I can see what the current areas are zoned as, and I can see that no place near the location I chose is zoned for manufacturing, so I can open my family restaurant. On the other hand, if the property right next to the location I chose is zoned for manufacturing, I might choose to open a place less family oriented and more designed for shift workers. The uncertainty is reduced.

Finally, if I know that the area is going to be mainly residential over the next twenty years, and more and more people are going to be moving into the new subdivisions in the area, I can be pretty confidant that a family oriented restaurant will do well over the long haul. My uncertainty about the community is quite low.

But you don't know that. All you know is that the government is going to try and force it to grow a certain way. But the only way they can do that is by preventing people from moving to a certain area or certain businesses from forming. So the only thing you do know is that the economic situation there will be stifled. The only reason you'd prefer that is for the corporate welfare the government would very likely be pushing your way.

And businesses thrive in uncertainty. Heck, if they didn't like uncertainty, they wouldn't start the business; most investment schemes give you a higher rate of return than starting your own business. So your whole point is based on a misunderstanding of how business owners operate.

3. Discriminates against low income people. I can only see one statement in the essay which attempts to support this claim. In the first part of the statement there are two assumptions built into the support for this claim. First, the assumption that zoning ordinances make homes cost more.

It's not an assumption; it's a scientific conclusion. See Glaeser, Edward L. and Joseph Gyourko, The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability, Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper #1948, Harvard University, Canbridge, Massachusetts, March 2002.

Second, the assumption that people are unable to buy a home because of this increased cost.

Most people have to get a mortgage to do so. With lower-income families, they will have a harder time doing so since the mortgage companies use income to measure the debt burden. With housing prices being higher, the payments would be higher, and so fewer families would be able to finance the home and have the payment within their debt burden.

I might concede the first assumption. After all, it does cost more to build a house with studs on sixteen inch centers, and fire traps between floors. It cost significantly more than a house made of tarpaper and lathe. What is the difference in cost between a well-built and a poorly built home?

The quality of construction has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with this difference. The study cited above just compared costs of buildable lots, without regard for what was to be built on them. It was just the lot price.

Also, zoning has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with building codes, so your argument is specious from the start.

The second part of the statement suggests that zoning laws prevent people from running businesses from their home. Well, the 269 page Lincoln County zoning ordinance has a whole section devoted to getting approval to use property for purposes it is not originally zoned for. Yes, you have to get the forms and jump through some hoops, but the laws don’t prevent people from running businesses from your home, just requires that you get approval to do so.

Look again. You can only use a certain percentage of your home, you can't have employees, and you can't have walk-in customers.

4. Absorbs money from the system. I can’t see any evidence presented in the essay to support this claim.

Where do you think all that extra money comes from?

5. Prevents property owners from using their property. This is a standard claim of the libertarian party, and it’s a bit disingenuous. Zoning law restricts the uses of property, it doesn’t prevent the use of property. How these restrictions are viewed is greatly dependant on the viewer.

Semantic jiggering. It's still a blatant violation of property rights, and is antithetical to the founding principles of this country.

As I see the manifestation of the state, it is composed of citizens. These citizens determine what policies are appropriate to everyone living in the state.

You're missing a step. The state is composed of citizens, who created the state by ratifying a Constitution. It's the Constitution that says what is and is not appropriate for the government. Amazing how many people skip that.

The basic Libertarian argument against zoning laws seems to be: Zoning laws restrict property rights and thus are in violation of the Federal Constitution.

And (more importantly) the state Constitution.

Zoning laws are an agreed upon code within a community.

That community only has power because of its charter from the state. The state is delegating certain powers it holds to the community because it's better to deal with it on a smaller scale. But it does only mean that the state can delegate the authority it has under its and under the Federal Constitutions.

I wish you luck, but I suspect you would have made a greater impact by joining the democrat or republican parties. They both are broad enough to accept people with your views.

I would never have made it past the primary. That much was obvious.

Your claim here is that zoning laws are enforced at the point of a gun. No, zoning laws are enforced at the point of your wallet. If you disregard zoning ordinances you will be fined, fined again, and maybe sent to a short term in jail after repeated offences.

And what are the guys who will send you to that short term in jail armed with?

Sooner or later, out come the guns...with everything government does.

So, then, is it, in fact, justifiable for you to take a gun to go and make your neighbor do your bidding? If not, then why is it justified for you to go appeal to the government to do the same?

Okay, I stand corrected. I deed restriction would require the previous owner, who may not be anywhere nearby, to seek redress. Or a community association could be written into the deed. In what way is the local government not a community association? Just because they are more than just a dozen houses?

No; because you never entered into any kind of an agreement, and they can change the terms without your consent.

Couldn’t you look at zoning ordinances as deed restrictions automatically applying to a wide area?

No, because agreements made under threat of force are invalid.

The Lincoln County fire codes are a separate document, which states that that the various NFPA codes along with any applicable North Carolina State laws apply. Maybe you aren’t familiar with NFPA, but it is also a private organization rather than a government agency. Insurance companies do have a lot of input into NFPA.

But this just proves my point: we don't need the government to do this.

There are private ratings to fire departments that are based on how much equipment they have and what type, how many personnel, etc. They do this to generate a fire rating that insurance companies use. Up the road from me, people in the small town of Denver had their rating dropped from 6 to 4 after the fire department expanded, built a bigger fire house, and purchased new trucks. As a result, everyone's homeowners insurance premiums in the district fell. It's come up before in this forum as to why private fire departments (of which there are many in the US) would work; this is an excellent example as to why.

I’m not following you. It’s a basic property right to, say, store an open tank of gasoline in your shed right next to your neighbors house? What other means do we have to prevent this kind of behavior without resorting to heavier laws? Zoning laws are fairly benign. They tell you up front what is acceptable behavior and if you violate it, you get fined.

All we need to do is enforce property rights. Someone who is storing open containers of gasoline near your property is posing a clear and present danger. That is what we need to be enforcing. Zoning laws are a terrible tool to do this; they just give the government the power to intrude in many ways like what was discussed above. I shouldn't be able to store open containers of gas near the property line, but I should be able to have a freakin' gutter on the side of my house!

Damages from negligence are not obvious up front, and negligent mistakes can kill people. It seems to me that the zoning law is a lot less of a sledgehammer than personal liability.

Then why do the liability laws have nothing whatsoever to do with zoning? And why isn't zoning enforceable in courts of equity?

Now that’s a bit of a leap. Let’s see, zoning laws = communism. Nope. I still can’t see it.

One of the ten planks of Communism as defined by Marx is "Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose." Zoning goes a long way towards achieving that.

Let’s try again, but replace the zoning laws with an equivalent. Community agreement = communism.

Wrong. Community agreements respect property rights. Zoning doesn't.

Actually Shane is correct about municipalities granting exclusive franchise rights. Backward, but correct. Our own community didn’t get broadband internet access until long after the surrounding communities. Since I live on the border, I seriously considered running a line over the street to my neighbor’s house. The reason for the delay was because all the cable companies in the area refused to provide the service until the municipality agreed to grant exclusive franchise rights.

In other words, the private companies didn’t really care who got the business, so long as one of them got all the business.

Um, the cable companies were already franchies in their areas. So calling them "private companies" was disingenuous. The government has pretty much always made them exclusive franchises.

Now, compare that with the efforts of the satellite and wireless phone companies to get broadband internet access everywhere.

I know, I know. You have responses to those statements. First, you claim that it is well known that the public sector is grossly inefficient. Second, you claim that in a completely free economy another business will form to drive the prices down.
The first claim is variable, some public sector jobs seem to be inefficient, but that’s not proof that all of them are.

There's that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" claim again.

The second claim is nonsense, there are both barriers to entry into an established industry (usually established by industries not governments), and no reason to suppose that prices will drop even if supply increases.

Sure, if you ignore all of the known laws of economics. But those of us who understand them know that as the supply curve shifts to the right, equilibrium price drops.

Finally, after all the statements about contracts, you have to admit that those free-loaders never signed an agreement to pay for the tower. Are we creating new law now?

No. But it's implicit in that they're "free-loaders" that they're taking the service without paying for it. Someone who isn't watching the service shouldn't have to pay for it at all. That's not the way it is with government.

Okay, it seems the most efficient way to deal with free loaders is to mark up the price for paying customers. It seems to me that in this case the people who get screwed are the customers.

And how much more is that the case with government services?

Or have a private business run the park, charge money for people to get in and fence the place off to prevent the free loaders from getting in.

And you talk about how zoning ordinances discriminate against low income people?

Or have a private business run the park, but have it funded through donations. Or any other of a zillion different options you're ignoring.

P.S. I probably will be unable in the future to devote as much time as I did today to this topic. Please be patient if I get delaying in answering questions or comments. –F.

No problem.

[shanek]

Here's an excellent essay on zoning, mostly focusing on Houston:

http://www.libertyhaven.com/personalfreedomissues/freespeechorcivilliberties/houstonzoning.html

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
But you don't know that. All you know is that the government is going to try and force it to grow a certain way. But the only way they can do that is by preventing people from moving to a certain area or certain businesses from forming. So the only thing you do know is that the economic situation there will be stifled. The only reason you'd prefer that is for the corporate welfare the government would very likely be pushing your way.
But you may want the economic situation stifled, if it is stifled in a certain way. If you are a smart business person, you will locate your business in an area that will support it as it currently stands. If I can be assured that the neighbour will ONLY grow in a certain manner, than the growth will be to my benefit (or I would not have located there). If I have no idea how the area will grow, I may be less likely to locate there as the growth may hurt my core business. And businesses thrive in uncertainty. Heck, if they didn't like uncertainty, they wouldn't start the business; most investment schemes give you a higher rate of return than starting your own business. So your whole point is based on a misunderstanding of how business owners operate. Balderdash. Ask any business person if they would rather know how the market for their product will evolve over the next five years or not. Will anyone say no? And you are mixing up "uncertainty" with "risk". They are not the same thing. People invest in their own business for a variety of reasons, but generally they do so as they see the potential reward outbalancing the risk. They try to limit the uncertainty as much as possible. It's not an assumption; it's a scientific conclusion. See Glaeser, Edward L. and Joseph Gyourko, The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability, Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper #1948, Harvard University, Canbridge, Massachusetts, March 2002. So you are saying that a lack of zoning lowers property values? My property is worth more because of zoning? Great!
Most people have to get a mortgage to do so. With lower-income families, they will have a harder time doing so since the mortgage companies use income to measure the debt burden. With housing prices being higher, the payments would be higher, and so fewer families would be able to finance the home and have the payment within their debt burden. That's nice. But you have to show that zoning causes the tipping point, which you haven't done.
Then why do the liability laws have nothing whatsoever to do with zoning? And why isn't zoning enforceable in courts of equity? What are you talking about? Do you actually have different courts of equity in your jurisdiction?
One of the ten planks of Communism as defined by Marx is "Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose." Zoning goes a long way towards achieving that. If by "a long way" you mean "really, not at all". Wrong. Community agreements respect property rights. Zoning doesn't. Really? How much voice do you have about the deed restrictions? Can you negotiate any of them when you buy your house, or are they forced on you - take it or leave it? Doesn't the article you link to say that the community associations get help in enforcing from the city (with their guns)? How is buying into a neighbourhood with zoning worse than buying into one with deed restrictions? I, personally, would rather deal with zoning than deed restrictions that tell me when to cut my lawn and what colour I have to paint my house. I find those much more restrictive of my property rights.

[davefoc]

I didn't read all the posts including Shanek's links to the article about Houston that I will read.

I do have a general comment about one kind of zoning. Zoning that controls the occupancy density of land.

On the one hand this seems like a perfectly legitimate power for a city to have. The city has some idea about the capability of its infrastructure to support a particular population density and allowing folks to willy nilly put in high density housing or to increase the density of existing housing whenever they feel like it could reduce the quality of life in the city as people not profiting from the high density developements experience more noise, more traffic, over crowded schools, inadequate sewage and water facilities. It also seems that people who would like to live in a low density living situation should have the right to band together and create havens from high density urban environments.

On the other hand, this kind of zoning has the effect of pricing housing above what many people can afford and it reduces low end housing to the point that there can be significant shortages which exacerbate a homeless problem.

So I'm not sure what the answer is here. I know I don't want somebody putting a chicken ranch or a high rise structure next to my house, but I think the way the zoning laws discriminate against the poorer segments of the population is not fair either.

[Flex]

I don’t really have time this morning to do this, I’ve got a new circuit design due shortly. (And my evenings are taken up with getting ready for a mid-term.)

But I’m going to take a minute because I thought of a new line of approach that may help me understand your viewpoint. I’m not going to demand an immediate answer, after all, it’s probably going to be sometime this weekend before I can comment on the points you replied to my original post with. (Although I already think we are closer to understanding our differences then we were before.)

So the question is this.

Zoning laws exist.
In order for zoning laws to exist they must have been adopted.
What were the reasons for the adoption of zoning laws in the first place?

There has to have been some reason. If the reasons no longer apply, it will go a long way toward supporting your position.

I expect a reasonable explanation for the adoption of zoning laws. Anyone who has studied the subject in some depth please feel free to answer.

Answers which are not reasonable include:

The idiots running the town are power hungry fools. That’s not a reasonable, but emotional explanation unless evidence can be provided to support it.

There are areas which do not have zoning laws. That’s not the reason other municipalities did, and so doesn’t address the question.

Finally, maybe for this question we should restrict ourselves to the land-use zoning. As I understand the development of zoning laws, it began by dividing up municipalities into residential, commercial, and industrial zones. Let’s start with why that happened and then you can help educate me toward the more recent, and less obvious, zoning restrictions about fence heights, tree-cutting, etc.

I’m going to try to track down those sources you mention. You realize, I’m sure, that just quoting a reference is a poor debating method and more likely to irritate your opponent than convince them. However, we are all pressed for time these days. Just don’t be surprised if it takes me a few days to consider and respond. I just thought of this question last night and figured it was good enough to throw into the discussion.

Cheers,

-Flex

[Ed]

Originally posted by Flex
So the question is this.

Zoning laws exist.
In order for zoning laws to exist they must have been adopted.
What were the reasons for the adoption of zoning laws in the first place?

There has to have been some reason. If the reasons no longer apply, it will go a long way toward supporting your position.



I live in a town with zoning laws. They were put in place about 20 years ago subsequent to a referendum, that is to say that the citizens of the town voted for it.

The town just north of us has no zoning laws and that is the only reason why we did not consider moving there. It is as pretty as where we currently live and property prices are appreciably lower but I did not care to wake up one fine morning and have a shiney new development across the street, or a road house, or a used car lot. My feeling was that the value of the peoperty that I bought was a function of the area at the time I bought it and I did not care to gamble with my investment (yes it is!) by trusting developers to do the right thing (or my neighbors for that matter).

Somewhat recently a developer developed a very large plot of farmland near to the town center. The result was a series of mini-mcmansions with not a tree between them. Can you spell "eyesore"? As a result, the zoning ordinances were beefed up to preclude such a horror from happening again (largely concerning lot size and creation of "forever wild" areas as part of future development. I don't think that these actions were unreasonable and in fact I applaud them. I wanted to live in a cute New England town, not Levittown. Moving is a stupid option, particularly since we are building a house that is exactly what we want and redoing it is completely unacceptable.

So, if one wants to have some sense that where one lives will predictable in terms of look and feel one should live in an area with zoning. If you like the potential of having rusting cars bordering your property, find a place without any zoning. Simple.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Flex
Zoning laws exist.
In order for zoning laws to exist they must have been adopted.
What were the reasons for the adoption of zoning laws in the first place?

Well, given the widespread failure of referenda that would institute a zoning ordinance, I think we can rule out the will of the people.

I can speak for my home county: when zoning was first enacted in the 1980s (yes, somehow, we managed over 200 years without any zoning) the commissioners were for it and those who were connected to them were for it. At the meeting where they were considering the ordinance, the people who showed up were over 2-to-1 against it. They passed it anyway. One of the people speaking against it asked why not put it on the ballot, if zoning is such a good thing? One of the commissioners responded that it was because it obviously wouldn't pass. They actually said that!

What's the reason? Because it gives the politicians and those who support them more power. And they've never needed any other reason than that.

I expect a reasonable explanation for the adoption of zoning laws.

They always have a reasonable explanation. In the case of zoning, it's to protect your property and your family in case someone builds a phosphorous mine next to your house (no lying; I've actually heard this as a reason for zoning!).

This is exposed for what it is, by the failure of anyone to meet my challenge:

Pick any place without zoning. Like Houston, TX, or rural places like Trimble County, KY. Several NC counties have no zoning, and neither do many other counties in states all over the country. Find one problem in any of those areas that we need zoning to prevent that also does not occur in areas with zoning. You need to do that to even establish that zoning has ever solved even a single problem.

So far, no one has been able to do it. Can you?

I’m going to try to track down those sources you mention. You realize, I’m sure, that just quoting a reference is a poor debating method and more likely to irritate your opponent than convince them.

This is a skeptics' board. I expect higher standards here.

However, we are all pressed for time these days. Just don’t be surprised if it takes me a few days to consider and respond. I just thought of this question last night and figured it was good enough to throw into the discussion.

No problem. Take all the time you need. But I'm still waiting, after three years of asking that question of zoning proponents, for someone to come back with one problem zoning has actually solved. Not FUD, but something that is a problem, that we actually see in areas without zoning, that we don't also see in areas with zoning. That's not unreasonable.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
I live in a town with zoning laws. They were put in place about 20 years ago subsequent to a referendum, that is to say that the citizens of the town voted for it.

The town just north of us has no zoning laws and that is the only reason why we did not consider moving there.

What two towns are these?

It is as pretty as where we currently live and property prices are appreciably lower but I did not care to wake up one fine morning and have a shiney new development across the street, or a road house, or a used car lot.

Is this happening in the town without zoning?

Somewhat recently a developer developed a very large plot of farmland near to the town center. The result was a series of mini-mcmansions with not a tree between them. Can you spell "eyesore"?

Can you spell, "subjective"?

I wanted to live in a cute New England town, not Levittown.

Then why not simply set up deed restrictions in your neighborhood?

Moving is a stupid option, particularly since we are building a house that is exactly what we want and redoing it is completely unacceptable.

So, then, other people should pay the expense for you living the way you want to?

If you like the potential of having rusting cars bordering your property, find a place without any zoning. Simple.

Rusting cars is actually a big issue in our county right now. They want to amend the zoning ordinance so if anyone has a "junk car" (whatever that means) in their yard, they have to obscure it with bushes or a privacy fence or something like that.

Here's my question: if your neighbor has junk cars in his lot, and you don't want to see them, why don't you put up the privacy fence?

[shanek]

I swear I posted a reply to this last night. I don't know what happened to it, so here we go again.

Originally posted by Thanz
But you may want the economic situation stifled, if it is stifled in a certain way. If you are a smart business person, you will locate your business in an area that will support it as it currently stands. If I can be assured that the neighbour will ONLY grow in a certain manner, than the growth will be to my benefit (or I would not have located there). If I have no idea how the area will grow, I may be less likely to locate there as the growth may hurt my core business.

What right do you have to stifle the economy for everyone else just so you can profit?

Balderdash. Ask any business person if they would rather know how the market for their product will evolve over the next five years or not. Will anyone say no?

According to the John Locke survey, 84% of them said "no."

People invest in their own business for a variety of reasons, but generally they do so as they see the potential reward outbalancing the risk.

Then why not simply out their money in a plethora of other investments, all of which are more secure and give a higher rate of return than running your own business?

Besides, again, according to the Locke Foundation survey, only 16% of them feel zoning does give them a reward that outbalances the risk.

So you are saying that a lack of zoning lowers property values? My property is worth more because of zoning? Great!

No; the real value doesn't change. The price does. It results in it being overpriced.

That's nice. But you have to show that zoning causes the tipping point, which you haven't done.

This was unbelievable when I first composed my reply last night, and it's still unbelievable now. How can you possibly deny the fact that there are people out there who can't afford their own homes? And if you don't deny that, how can you possibly deny that many of them would be able to afford it if the price were cheaper?

What are you talking about? Do you actually have different courts of equity in your jurisdiction?

Our courts are combined courts of common law and equity. When the courts enforce contracts, they're considered to be courts of equity.

If by "a long way" you mean "really, not at all".[B]

Then why can't I have a gutter on the side of my house?

[b]Really? How much voice do you have about the deed restrictions?

Since you have to voluntarily agree to them, you have all the voice in the world. 60% of a town can't force their way on the other 40%.

Can you negotiate any of them when you buy your house, or are they forced on you - take it or leave it?

You clearly don't understand what "force" is. No, they aren't "forced" on you any more than the price of a diet Coke is "forced" on you when you buy one. Stop weaseling.

Doesn't the article you link to say that the community associations get help in enforcing from the city (with their guns)?

No, they aren't. We don't have debtors prison.

How is buying into a neighbourhood with zoning worse than buying into one with deed restrictions?

Because with zoning, they can change it any time they want to. With deed restrictions, they can only do it if you agree to it.

I, personally, would rather deal with zoning than deed restrictions that tell me when to cut my lawn and what colour I have to paint my house. I find those much more restrictive of my property rights.

I can't believe the ignorance in this post; it's so unlike you. There are many zoning ordinances that say what color you must paint your house, what kind of roof you must have, or how often and at what height you must mow your lawn.

[shanek]

Originally posted by davefoc
On the one hand this seems like a perfectly legitimate power for a city to have. The city has some idea about the capability of its infrastructure to support a particular population density and allowing folks to willy nilly put in high density housing or to increase the density of existing housing whenever they feel like it could reduce the quality of life in the city as people not profiting from the high density developements experience more noise, more traffic, over crowded schools, inadequate sewage and water facilities.

And then they complain about "sprawl." John Stossel's latest special, "Myths, Lies, and Nasty Behavior" had a really good debunking of that.

It also seems that people who would like to live in a low density living situation should have the right to band together and create havens from high density urban environments.

They can; again, they're called "deed restricitons." Deed restrictions are contracts, and are therefore voluntary and peaceful. Zoning is tyranny at the point of a gun.

So I'm not sure what the answer is here. I know I don't want somebody putting a chicken ranch or a high rise structure next to my house, but I think the way the zoning laws discriminate against the poorer segments of the population is not fair either.

What do you think of deed restrictions?

[davefoc]

Shanek asked:What do you think of deed restrictions

Thank you for asking my opinion. This is one of those issues I've thought about but don't have much to say about.

Deed restrictions seem like a reasonable approach to some issues. One of things that I think is questionable about deed restrictions is they can make it difficult to change things when the deed restrictions are no longer justified by the circumstances.

I own a piece of proper that originally had various deed restrictions on it. There were racial restrictions (kind of strange to read these with the sensibilities of a person living in this era) and there were requirements that the property had to be developed with Spanish/Mediteranean stucco and clay tile architecture. I wonder when the racial restrictions were lifted in practice. By law I think they were removed some time around 1960 when CA made racial restrictions illegal. The architecture restrictions were lifted some time during the depression I suspect when the money for cutesey architecture versus practicality dried up.

How do you feel about the governement lifting the racial deed restrctions by law? If you don't think the government should have lifted the racial deed restriction by force of law would you have allowed the racial deed restriction to stay in place in perpetuity?

Incidentally, although, I am not prepared to argue for this idea, I agree that zoning restrictions cause many significant problems that are almost never acknowledged in today's political discussion. Basically I am trying to say that I agree with you to some degree here.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
What right do you have to stifle the economy for everyone else just so you can profit? I (the business person) am not the one stifling the economy of the area. I am the one who is taking adavantage of it. Big difference. According to the John Locke survey, 84% of them said "no."To a completely different question, judging by what you have posted. Do you have a link to the survey with this number? I couldn't find it on the John Locke site.Then why not simply out their money in a plethora of other investments, all of which are more secure and give a higher rate of return than running your own business?Well, I did say that there were other reasons, but I disagree with the fundamental premise of your assertion here. Capital markets only work if businesses make more money than they give in return for capital. You don't take out a loan at 10% if you can only earn a 5% return in your business on that money. So, owning your own business must have the potential to earn a higher rate of return than other simpler investments. Otherwise, few would do it. And the more a business person knows about his business and its potential, the better decisions he can make, and the more money he can earn.
Besides, again, according to the Locke Foundation survey, only 16% of them feel zoning does give them a reward that outbalances the risk.I'd like to see that survey for myself. I'd like to see who they asked, where, and at what stage their business is in. An established business may have a different perspective than an entrepeneur looking to locate a particular business.
No; the real value doesn't change. The price does. It results in it being overpriced.What is the difference between value and price in the resale housing market? The price that is agreed upon by both seller and purchaser at arm's length IS the value of the property. However else will you determine a value? From what you are saying, this number is higher in areas with zoning. Seems like zoning increases property values.
This was unbelievable when I first composed my reply last night, and it's still unbelievable now. How can you possibly deny the fact that there are people out there who can't afford their own homes? And if you don't deny that, how can you possibly deny that many of them would be able to afford it if the price were cheaper?The question you are avoiding is HOW MUCH cheaper is it? If you are talking $1000 on a $150,000 purchase, I don't see it being the tipping point. If, on the other hand, you are talking about $25000, that is entirely different. It is not enough to simply say it is cheaper and therefore more can afford tehm, without a consideration of how much.
Our courts are combined courts of common law and equity. When the courts enforce contracts, they're considered to be courts of equity.Sorry, but that is just wrong. If they are combined courts (as I suspected they were) they can provide both legal and equitable remedies. To say that they only consider equity when enforcing contracts is ludicrous. There are a whole host of legal remedies for breach of contract, all of which will be considered.Then why can't I have a gutter on the side of my house?I confess that I have not followed your gutter story that closely. Maybe your deed restrictions say that gutters suck. :pSince you have to voluntarily agree to them, you have all the voice in the world. 60% of a town can't force their way on the other 40%.Not a real voice you don't. You can either take them, or buy somewhere else. How is that different from zoning? If I can't negotiate with the vendor to remove the restrictions, they are just as prohibitive and involuntary as zoning.You clearly don't understand what "force" is. No, they aren't "forced" on you any more than the price of a diet Coke is "forced" on you when you buy one. Stop weaseling.It is not weaseling - it is the facts. If you can't change them, how is it different? Ifyour only options are accept them or buy somewhere else, how is that any different than zoning? No, they aren't. We don't have debtors prison. According to the article on Houston that you linked to, they get help from the city in enforcement. Is the article wrong? And who mentioned debtor's prison? Because with zoning, they can change it any time they want to. With deed restrictions, they can only do it if you agree to it.Which means that one person could hold up changes that would benefit the entire neighbourhood. Let's say that the deed restrictions say you must paint your house red. The neighbourhood gets together and says - screw that. We want to paint our houses whatever we like! They vote, and it is 20 in favour of ditching the restriction, and 10 in favour of maintaining it. What happens?
I can't believe the ignorance in this post; it's so unlike you. There are many zoning ordinances that say what color you must paint your house, what kind of roof you must have, or how often and at what height you must mow your lawn.
Then you should have no trouble pointing me to some.

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek
What two towns are these?

If you promise you won't show up here with a gun (and I am not hiding Claus, I swear:)) Woodbury and Bethlehem CT. (The latter has a Flanders Rd., BTW).


Is this happening in the town without zoning?

[b]Spotty and unpredictable. Which is the problem, I think.



Can you spell, "subjective"?

Subjektive. I see your point but the jarring nature of this thing is objective. If you want "New England", and you moved to an area for that ambiance, you might be a tad put out.



Then why not simply set up deed restrictions in your neighborhood?

Not everything is a development, houses are scattered and getting general acceptance is about the same as getting a zoning regulation passed. And the zoning would apply to the whole town, not just the people that sign off on a deed restriction. Also, the farmers and others selling off big parcels of land to developers are hardly likely to lessen the attractiveness of the land they are selling with a bunch of restrictions.



So, then, other people should pay the expense for you living the way you want to?

And they want to. Remember the town voted zoning in. Since restrictions help real estate investment values it is a net win. I feel the pain of the Hog Fat Renderer that cannot set up business on Main Street, not.



Rusting cars is actually a big issue in our county right now. They want to amend the zoning ordinance so if anyone has a "junk car" (whatever that means) in their yard, they have to obscure it with bushes or a privacy fence or something like that.

Don't know about here but in my old town there was something about outside storage of cars in excess of the number of drivers in the household. The fact is that the town only acted on a complaint and I can recall one, and it was a wreck on the front lawn.

Here's my question: if your neighbor has junk cars in his lot, and you don't want to see them, why don't you put up the privacy fence?

Ummm...I find that opaque fences disturb my Wa.[/QUOTE] :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by davefoc
How do you feel about the governement lifting the racial deed restrctions by law?

The government has no business interfering in contracts. The Federal governmentis given no power to do so in Article I Section 8, and the states are expressly forbidden from doing so in Article I Secion 10. You right to contract is unlimited. So the government has no business doing this.

If you don't think the government should have lifted the racial deed restriction by force of law would you have allowed the racial deed restriction to stay in place in perpetuity?

No, it just means that I wouldn't have used the government to stop it. I would have contacted TVs, newspapers, etc. and used the negative publicity to try and shame them into changing. That's a very powerful option, one that has proven very effective.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
I (the business person) am not the one stifling the economy of the area. I am the one who is taking adavantage of it. Big difference.

If you go to the government to have them make or enforce the zoning laws, you are most certainly doing it.

To a completely different question, judging by what you have posted.

The question had to deal with whether or not zoning gave a positive rate of return. Your questions and statements fall within that concept.

Do you have a link to the survey with this number?

I didn't see it on their site, either. I saw the printed report.

Well, I did say that there were other reasons, but I disagree with the fundamental premise of your assertion here. Capital markets only work if businesses make more money than they give in return for capital. You don't take out a loan at 10% if you can only earn a 5% return in your business on that money. So, owning your own business must have the potential to earn a higher rate of return than other simpler investments. Otherwise, few would do it.

Two problems with what you've said: 1) few do do it, and 2) those capital investment markets only represent the tiny number of businesses who make it that far. For every one you can invest in, there are probably 100 who haven't made it. So you're looking at an effect that has already selected out the strongest businesses.

I'd like to see that survey for myself. I'd like to see who they asked, where, and at what stage their business is in.

This is from my notes: they amassed a mailing list of 3,700 NC businesses, from large employers to small businesses. They weighted the samples based on whether or not they joined a public policy group, such as a local Chamber of Commerce. They were also weighted by size of the organization and by region.

They asked them to rate the rate of return on various government programs as either "good," or "positive," "fair," or "neutral," or "poor," or "negative. They then simply listed the programs and had them check which one they felt was appropriate. For the zoning issue, only 16% said "good," while 59% said "fair" and 25% said "poor."

What is the difference between value and price in the resale housing market? The price that is agreed upon by both seller and purchaser at arm's length IS the value of the property. However else will you determine a value?

It's just like everything else. Costs can go up because real value goes up, meaning the actual worth of the item is greater, or it can go up nominally, with expenses lumped on that have nothing to do with the quality of the product. They're two entirely different things.

From what you are saying, this number is higher in areas with zoning. Seems like zoning increases property values.

No, it doesn't. In Houston, the property values are actually greater than in neighboring towns with zoning. Zoning doesn't increase the value of the property, it just makes it more expensive to do stuff with it. That's why the property in Houston is of a greater value—because it's not as expensive to develop it.

The question you are avoiding is HOW MUCH cheaper is it? If you are talking $1000 on a $150,000 purchase, I don't see it being the tipping point. If, on the other hand, you are talking about $25000, that is entirely different.

If you look at the Harvard survey I cited above, on average in urban and suburban areas of the country the price of a buildable quarter-acre lot is $15,409 without zoning (the real price of the lot), while zoning adds $126,643 to the price. Yes, we're talking about quite a lot here.

Sorry, but that is just wrong. If they are combined courts (as I suspected they were) they can provide both legal and equitable remedies. To say that they only consider equity when enforcing contracts is ludicrous.

No, it isn't. They perform one role when needed and the other role when needed as well. In contract disputes, they perform the function of an equity court.

I confess that I have not followed your gutter story that closely. Maybe your deed restrictions say that gutters suck.

My land has no deed restrictions.

Not a real voice you don't. You can either take them, or buy somewhere else. How is that different from zoning? If I can't negotiate with the vendor to remove the restrictions, they are just as prohibitive and involuntary as zoning.

See my response above. I have already explained why your comparison here is dishonest.

It is not weaseling - it is the facts.

No, it isn't. One is a voluntary agreement; the other is enacted and changed by force. As I have already explained.

Which means that one person could hold up changes that would benefit the entire neighbourhood.

Not so. Look at Snide's example.

Then you should have no trouble pointing me to some.

It's your claim. You provide the proof.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
If you promise you won't show up here with a gun (and I am not hiding Claus, I swear:)) Woodbury and Bethlehem CT. (The latter has a Flanders Rd., BTW).

Okey-diddly-oh! :D

Looks like Woodbury's the one with Zoning, as they have a Zoning Commission. So Bethlehem, presumably, doesn't. But they are part of a Watershed Coalition along with Woodbury and Southbury:

http://www.pomperaug.org/

And, oddly enough, they do have a planning office. So they may not have zoning per se, but they do have things they do to restrict land use.

Spotty and unpredictable. Which is the problem, I think.

Explain what you mean by "spotty and unpredictable." How much development is there in Bethlehem as opposed to Woodbury?

I see your point but the jarring nature of this thing is objective. If you want "New England", and you moved to an area for that ambiance, you might be a tad put out.

Maybe, but this is government we're talking about. I've seen the wackiest things considered "eyesores."

Not everything is a development,

It doesn't have to be to be a deed restriction. All you need is a contract with the existing property owners.

houses are scattered and getting general acceptance is about the same as getting a zoning regulation passed.

Well, that should tell you something right there.

Also, the farmers and others selling off big parcels of land to developers are hardly likely to lessen the attractiveness of the land they are selling with a bunch of restrictions.

First of all, you don't know that. It all depends on what the deed restrictions restrict. Second, there's no reason to believe that this would be any worse than it would be with zoning.

And they want to. Remember the town voted zoning in.

Was it unanimous? Was there any ability to opt out? If the answer to both of these is "no," then some people are forcing there will on those who don't want to. So, again, other people should pay the expense for you living the way you want to?

And I'm still waiting for a problem the area without zoning has that the area with zoning doesn't.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
If you go to the government to have them make or enforce the zoning laws, you are most certainly doing it. What if you are using the gov't to enforce your deed restrictions? From the link you provided above:Enforceable by civic associations with help from the city, the document can prevent businesses or apartments from entering the neighborhood. It can even require residents to keep their lawns manicured or their homes painted only certain colors.
The question had to deal with whether or not zoning gave a positive rate of return. Your questions and statements fall within that concept.Your description of this poll later on is quite different from what you are presenting it to be. You are presenting the 59% of people who said "fair" as against zoning. The truth is not that 84% did not like zoning, it is that most businesses thought zoning was ither "fair" - a slight return - or neutral. Huge difference from what you are saying.
Two problems with what you've said: 1) few do do it, and 2) those capital investment markets only represent the tiny number of businesses who make it that far. For every one you can invest in, there are probably 100 who haven't made it. So you're looking at an effect that has already selected out the strongest businesses.I am shocked that you lack a fundamental understanding of business. Tiny percentage of business markets that make it to the capital market? Any business that takes out a loan is in the "capital market". Why do businesses take out loans? They take out loans because they believe they can use that money to make more than the interest that they have to pay for it. This is from my notes: they amassed a mailing list of 3,700 NC businesses, from large employers to small businesses. They weighted the samples based on whether or not they joined a public policy group, such as a local Chamber of Commerce. They were also weighted by size of the organization and by region.

They asked them to rate the rate of return on various government programs as either "good," or "positive," "fair," or "neutral," or "poor," or "negative. They then simply listed the programs and had them check which one they felt was appropriate. For the zoning issue, only 16% said "good," while 59% said "fair" and 25% said "poor."
See above for my problems with the way you have been presenting this poll.
It's just like everything else. Costs can go up because real value goes up, meaning the actual worth of the item is greater, or it can go up nominally, with expenses lumped on that have nothing to do with the quality of the product. They're two entirely different things.Are you forgetting that I specifically asked about the RESALE housing market? We are not talkinga bout building or compliance costs - we are talking simply about the value of the property. How is the value of my house (built in the late 40's) and land "artificially" inflated by zoning?
No, it doesn't. In Houston, the property values are actually greater than in neighboring towns with zoning. Zoning doesn't increase the value of the property, it just makes it more expensive to do stuff with it. That's why the property in Houston is of a greater value—because it's not as expensive to develop it.How does this jive with the claims of most affordable housing? Let's say a 2 bedroom bungalow in a Dallas neighbourhood costs X. Will a similar house in a similar neighbourhood in Houston cost more or less than X?
If you look at the Harvard survey I cited above, on average in urban and suburban areas of the country the price of a buildable quarter-acre lot is $15,409 without zoning (the real price of the lot), while zoning adds $126,643 to the price. Yes, we're talking about quite a lot here.
I can accept that it costs more to develop a lot if you need zoning approvals, etc. But how does that affect the resale market? Or does it affect it at all?
No, it isn't. They perform one role when needed and the other role when needed as well. In contract disputes, they perform the function of an equity court.You are just wrong on this point. The most common contractual remedy is damages. That is a legal remedy, not an equitable one.
My land has no deed restrictions.Did you not catch the smiley?See my response above. I have already explained why your comparison here is dishonest.No, you have merely avoided the question. When buying a home with deed restrictions, can you negotiate any of those restrictions away? Do you, as purchaser, have the freedom to pay for the land you want with no restrictions? Or must you accept the restrictions if you want that land?
No, it isn't. One is a voluntary agreement; the other is enacted and changed by force. As I have already explained.Answer my direct questions please. Do you have any option to remove the restrictions when buying the house?
Not so. Look at Snide's example.What example? Snide hasn't posted in this thread.
It's your claim. You provide the proof.
No it isn't. You claimed that zoning has all sorts of restrictions like mowing and house colour. That is your claim. The fact that these are in deed restrictions is shown in the quote from your source above. I am asking for proof of YOUR assertion that this is zoning as well.

Finally, why do you not answer my questions regarding deed restrictions? Let's say that there is a deed restriction in a community that says all houses must be painted red. The community association holds a meeting and all 100 home owners show up. 60 of them want the restriction removed. 40 of them want the restriction to stay, and fear that the value of their home will decrease if the restriction is lifted. What happens to the restriction?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
What if you are using the gov't to enforce your deed restrictions?

They're just enforcing a legal contract. How you fail to see the difference is beyond me.

Your description of this poll later on is quite different from what you are presenting it to be. You are presenting the 59% of people who said "fair" as against zoning. The truth is not that 84% did not like zoning, it is that most businesses thought zoning was ither "fair" - a slight return - or neutral. Huge difference from what you are saying.

I have said all along that only 16% thought that zoning gave them a positive rate of return, and that 84% didn't think so. That is absolutely correct.

I am shocked that you lack a fundamental understanding of business.

:rolleyes:

I own a business.

Tiny percentage of business markets that make it to the capital market? Any business that takes out a loan is in the "capital market". Why do businesses take out loans? They take out loans because they believe they can use that money to make more than the interest that they have to pay for it.

Oh, yeah, right. If only it were that simple...

Are you forgetting that I specifically asked about the RESALE housing market? We are not talkinga bout building or compliance costs - we are talking simply about the value of the property.

Building and compliance costs don't affect resale value? You can say that and accuse me of not understanding business???

How is the value of my house (built in the late 40's) and land "artificially" inflated by zoning?

Because it's based on the cost of constructing a similar house from scratch today.

How does this jive with the claims of most affordable housing? Let's say a 2 bedroom bungalow in a Dallas neighbourhood costs X. Will a similar house in a similar neighbourhood in Houston cost more or less than X?

It will cost less, even though it may be of superior quality and therefore have a higher real value.

I can accept that it costs more to develop a lot if you need zoning approvals, etc. But how does that affect the resale market?

Because the market seeks equilibrium.

You are just wrong on this point. The most common contractual remedy is damages. That is a legal remedy, not an equitable one.

You keep showing your profound ignorance.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equity.html

In law, the term equity refers to a particular set of remedies and associated procedures. These equitable doctrines and procedures are distinquished from "legal" ones. Equitable relief is generally available only when a legal remedy is insufficient or inadequate in some way. This could be when a claim involves a particular piece of real estate, or if specific performance is the relief requested by the plaintiff.

The latter is the case with deed restrictions.

When buying a home with deed restrictions, can you negotiate any of those restrictions away?

Possibly. You'd have to negotiate that under the terms of the seller's contract. Again, they usually set up a third party to deal with these things, and negotiation with them would not be out of the question.

Do you, as purchaser, have the freedom to pay for the land you want with no restrictions?

You're misusing the term "freedom" again. You keep ignoring that there's another party to this exchange, and he is under no obligation to sell you the property at all.

What example? Snide hasn't posted in this thread.

I'm talking about the one Flex referred to in his OP.

No it isn't. You claimed that zoning has all sorts of restrictions like mowing and house colour. That is your claim. The fact that these are in deed restrictions is shown in the quote from your source above. I am asking for proof of YOUR assertion that this is zoning as well.

Wrong. It was YOUR claim that deed restrictions restricted things that zoning didn't, like mowing one's grass. Do I need to remind you what happened over in the thread where we were discussing police powers with regards to the Constitution, and it was DEMANDED that I support my contention that police swore an oath to uphold the Constitution as required by Article VI Clause 3? I listed several examples, and that still wasn't enough. And people really fault me for being sick and tired of all of these dishonest games?

But, if you insist, here's one example:

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10367_11851-33529--,00.html

A green lawn or rock garden makes a good fuel break, but grass must be kept watered and cut, and dead grass must be removed.

Now are you just going to accept that you were wrong? Or are you going to be right no matter how many examples I come up with?

Finally, why do you not answer my questions regarding deed restrictions? Let's say that there is a deed restriction in a community that says all houses must be painted red. The community association holds a meeting and all 100 home owners show up. 60 of them want the restriction removed. 40 of them want the restriction to stay, and fear that the value of their home will decrease if the restriction is lifted. What happens to the restriction?

It depends on the terms of the original contract. What more do you want me to say?

If the original contract says that a majority or a 3/5ths agreement among contractors can repeal a part of the contract, then it gets removed. But you gave no such conditions. You simply don't give me enough to answer your question, and don't accept it when I explain why your demand is inadequate and you just don't understand the nature of contracts. You just keep demanding over and over that I answer the questions. This is making things very frustrating.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
I have said all along that only 16% thought that zoning gave them a positive rate of return, and that 84% didn't think so. That is absolutely correct. Actually, you said "84% of them said no". Which simply isn't true. I own a business. Not a very good one, if your responses here are any indication. Why do YOU own a business if you think you can get more money investing your capital elsewhere? Are you just stupid? Oh, yeah, right. If only it were that simple... Without any indication of why it isn't that simple. Not what I would call a pursuasive response. Are you telling me that you would borrow $25,000 at 10% if you thought you could only get a 5% return on that money in your business?
Building and compliance costs don't affect resale value? You can say that and accuse me of not understanding business??? Because they don't, if the house is (like mine) over 50 years old. There are no building or compliance costs. I have owned my house for 5 years, and have not paid anything for building or zoning compliance. Because it's based on the cost of constructing a similar house from scratch today. It most certainly is not. What are the three rules of real estate? Location, location, location. I could sell my 2 bedroom bungalow, purchase a 4 bedroom brand new home in a suburb, and MAKE money. The value of my home is based on its location in a great neighbourhood. Nothing to do with how much it would cost to build it. My fire insurance is based on how much it would cost to rebuild - but that is not what the value of my land is based on.
It will cost less, even though it may be of superior quality and therefore have a higher real value. I doubt that this is true in the resale market. The majority of the price of real estate is determined by location. that's why a four bedroom in one neighbourhood will cost less than a 2 bedroom in another. Further, you haven't provided any evidence that the home in the non-zoned neighbourhood would be of superior quality. I asked specifically about similar homes. The market has determined that similar homes are worth less in non-zoned areas.
Because the market seeks equilibrium. Resale housing prices are not driven by new home prices: rather, it is the other way around. You only embark on a new home project if the prices you can receive from the homes will net you a good return on investment. You determine whether you can do that by looking at the price of homes that already exist. If a 3 bedroom home is selling for $250,000, and you can't build one and make a decent return if you sell it any less than $300,000, you simply don't build.
You keep showing your profound ignorance.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equity.html

The latter is the case with deed restrictions.
Shanek, I simply know more about this than you do. I don't need your insults. You baldly stated thatWhen the courts enforce contracts, they're considered to be courts of equity.which is wrong. I responded by saying If they are combined courts (as I suspected they were) they can provide both legal and equitable remedies. To say that they only consider equity when enforcing contracts is ludicrous.your responseNo, it isn't. They perform one role when needed and the other role when needed as well. In contract disputes, they perform the function of an equity court.shanek, these general statements are just wrong. A combined court can provide both legal and equitable remedies. A contractual dispute may involve one or both of these aspects. For example, let's say I hire you to paint my house for $1000. You then renege on your agreement and breach the contract. I have to hire someone else, who charges me $1500. I sue you for the extra $500 as damages for your breach of contract. That is a legal remedy, not equity. That is the most common case dealing with contracts - damages for breach.

Land frequently is a special case. Certain remedies may be available, such as specific performance, for land that are not available for other contracts. And yes, specific performance is an equitable remedy. So a court may have to invoke its equitable jurisdiction to provide certain remedies. But to say that when it is a contract case the court puts on its equity cap and ignores the law, like ignoring zoning laws, is just wrong. Combined juridiction allows the court to provide equitable remedies - it does not turn the court into an exclusive "court of equity" at any time.
You're misusing the term "freedom" again. You keep ignoring that there's another party to this exchange, and he is under no obligation to sell you the property at all.Of course he isn't. But under a deed restriction, niether the seller nor the buyer can come to any bargain with respect tot he restrictions themselves. The seller wants to sell me the property without the red restriction. I want to buy it without the red restriciton. Can we do that? No. We need to involve someone else. A body of people overseeing what they think is best for community. Some sort of council perhaps....
I'm talking about the one Flex referred to in his OP.Snide's example has nothing to do with deed restrictions or zoning.Wrong. It was YOUR claim that deed restrictions restricted things that zoning didn't, like mowing one's grass. Do I need to prove a negative? I have shown you the positive - from your own source. It is now up to you to show me that zoning is the same. Do I need to remind you what happened over in the thread where we were discussing police powers with regards to the Constitution, and it was DEMANDED that I support my contention that police swore an oath to uphold the Constitution as required by Article VI Clause 3? I listed several examples, and that still wasn't enough. And people really fault me for being sick and tired of all of these dishonest games?All I asked was that you point me to some. I asked for examples. I have not demanded that you prove all zoning has these restrictions. I asked for "some" to back up your claim that they exist. No games.
But, if you insist, here's one example:

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10367_11851-33529--,00.html

Now are you just going to accept that you were wrong? Or are you going to be right no matter how many examples I come up with?
That's nice, but it isn't actually a zoning ordinance. It is a recommendation from the department of natural resources on fire prevention.
It depends on the terms of the original contract. What more do you want me to say?

If the original contract says that a majority or a 3/5ths agreement among contractors can repeal a part of the contract, then it gets removed. But you gave no such conditions. You simply don't give me enough to answer your question, and don't accept it when I explain why your demand is inadequate and you just don't understand the nature of contracts. You just keep demanding over and over that I answer the questions. This is making things very frustrating. The point is that you complained that 60% of the people are imposing their will on 40% in a zoning scheme. I don't see how it is fundamentally different in the deed restriction area. You still have group A imposing its will on Group B, with an organization to enforce, and little (if any) way to negotiate an individual contract on those restrictions. It is just zoning by a different name.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Actually, you said "84% of them said no". Which simply isn't true.

That was in response to your statement, "Ask any business person if they would rather know how the market for their product will evolve over the next five years or not. Will anyone say no?" That 84% clearly did, since only 16% agreed with that premise: that it's better to have zoning and know. That's what the "positive rate of return" means.

Not a very good one, if your responses here are any indication. Why do YOU own a business if you think you can get more money investing your capital elsewhere? Are you just stupid?

No; it's because there are some things more important than money.

Without any indication of why it isn't that simple. Not what I would call a pursuasive response.

Go into business for yourself and then go apply for a loan. See if any bank will touch you until you've been in business for two years.

Because they don't, if the house is (like mine) over 50 years old. There are no building or compliance costs.

There would be if you were to build an identical home from scratch. That definitely figures into the price.

Homes that are already built have a distinct advantage over new homes for precisely that reason: you don't have to worry about going and having it built yourself. But, of course, there's a limited number of existing homes on the market. So the laws of supply and demand are going to cause those prices to become more in line with the price of a new home. If it's too out of balance the one way, there'll be too much demand for existing homes and not enough demand for new homes. The market will balance itself out.

What are the three rules of real estate? Location, location, location. I could sell my 2 bedroom bungalow, purchase a 4 bedroom brand new home in a suburb, and MAKE money. The value of my home is based on its location in a great neighbourhood. Nothing to do with how much it would cost to build it.

I assumed we were invoking ceteris paribus. If we aren't, then the discussion is meaningless.

A combined court can provide both legal and equitable remedies.

But there are still differences in cases that involve civil or common law penalties and those which provide equitable penalties. If you want to compel performance, as you would with deed restrictions, equity law is what you need.

A contractual dispute may involve one or both of these aspects. For example, let's say I hire you to paint my house for $1000. You then renege on your agreement and breach the contract. I have to hire someone else, who charges me $1500. I sue you for the extra $500 as damages for your breach of contract. That is a legal remedy, not equity. That is the most common case dealing with contracts - damages for breach.

But the only consequences are financial. You cannot compel me to comply; you can only make me cough up the money for damages. In order to compel performance, you need a judgement in equity.

But to say that when it is a contract case the court puts on its equity cap and ignores the law, like ignoring zoning laws, is just wrong.

I didn't say that. We were talking about deed restrictions here, not zoning. The court of equity is how you enforce deed restrictions since you need to compel performance.

Of course he isn't. But under a deed restriction, niether the seller nor the buyer can come to any bargain with respect tot he restrictions themselves. The seller wants to sell me the property without the red restriction.

Then he shouldn't have signed the contract. If he changes his mind, he needs to go and renegotiate the contract. You're trying to twist it into an abridgement of freedom when it simply isn't. That would only be the case if the seller entered the contract under duress, but that would nullify the agreement.

Snide's example has nothing to do with deed restrictions or zoning.

It directly speaks against your claim that "one person could hold up changes that would benefit the entire neighbourhood." That just isn't the case.

Do I need to prove a negative?

No; you need to support your claim. You said, "I, personally, would rather deal with zoning than deed restrictions that tell me when to cut my lawn and what colour I have to paint my house." You clearly claimed that those restrictions were outside the realm of zoning. That is quite simply wrong.

All I asked was that you point me to some. I asked for examples. I have not demanded that you prove all zoning has these restrictions. I asked for "some" to back up your claim that they exist. No games.

Well, you have one. Is it enough?

That's nice, but it isn't actually a zoning ordinance. It is a recommendation from the department of natural resources on fire prevention.

Yeah. It's only called "An Introduction to Designing Zoning & Building Standards For Local Officials" because they're part of the conspiracy...

So what's your excuse for this one?

http://www.marlboro-twp.com/default.asp?pull=/FAQ-zoning.asp

My neighbor is not cutting his grass. What can be done?
Call the Zoning Office and report the address. A letter will be sent to the homeowner explaining the grass ordinance and giving them ten (10) days to cut the grass. If after ten (10) days, the grass has not been cut, a Notice of Violation will be sent. Ten (10) days will be given for the grass to be cut. If at this time, the problem has not been addressed, either a Summons can be issued or a Notice to Abate an unsafe condition can be sent. Failure to comply with a Notice to Abate can result in the Township cutting the grass or the Township hiring an outside contractor to cut the grass. A lien will be put against the property to cover the cost of cutting. Please bear in mind that properties where the grass is not being cut are typically in foreclosure and the bank holding the mortgage must be identified and contacted in order to get the grass cut.

The point is that you complained that 60% of the people are imposing their will on 40% in a zoning scheme. I don't see how it is fundamentally different in the deed restriction area. You still have group A imposing its will on Group B, with an organization to enforce, and little (if any) way to negotiate an individual contract on those restrictions. It is just zoning by a different name.

No, it isn't, because in that case goup B agreed to the restrictions of their own free will. Why do you keep ignoring this point?

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
... if your neighbor has junk cars in his lot, and you don't want to see them, why don't you put up the privacy fence? One question: Was that your campaign slogan?

I can see how maybe one or two people, youself included, would vote for the person taking that stance.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
One question: Was that your campaign slogan?

"All your freedoms, all the time!"

[Flex]

Originally posted by Flex

The evidence you provide for these claims is all anecdotal, but let’s look at it anyway.

Originally posted by ShaneK

I would just like to point out that, although they are anecdotes, they are all things that happened in the county where I was running for office, so they directly related to my campaign, which is what I wrote the essay for.

Quite right. I was thinking of pointing it out myself, but decided against it because it suggests a very personal involvement in the argument on your part. There is nothing wrong, in my mind, from making an argument very personal. I’m just loathe to make the claim that an argument is personal for someone else.

Originally posted by Flex

I have reviewed the minutes where the refusal to rezone occurred. They are available on-line.

Originally posted by ShaneK
7tes really don't tell you much. The commissioners specifically order the clerk not to put their reasons for voting the way they did into the minutes. I spoke to her about this during the campaign; she told me that she would be happy to do so, in fact, she used to do this until the commissioners told her to stop. I made a bit of a stink about that during the campaign; I see it as an accountability issue.

Yes, I’ve seen a great deal of variety among meeting minutes. Some places record everything, some places only record a summary. I’ve heard several arguments both ways, including a rather cynical one suggesting that the real political power rests in the hands of those who take the minutes. In one municipality around here, there is a fellow who videotapes every session of the board. No one on the board, who I know pretty well, knows why he does it. The meetings are open, and so long as he remains unobtrusive no one is going to try and stop him, but no one has asked and he hasn’t volunteered a reason. He doesn’t have to give a reason, he’s welcome to tape all the meetings he wants.

When I mean unobtrusive, I mean that if he starts interfering with the business of the board because of his video taping, he will be asked to refrain from the interference. If he has business with the board, that’s not interference, nor is unobtrusive videotaping.

I suppose my point is that I was hoping to find collaborative evidence for your claims in the minutes, but I admit that because the minutes are not very detailed, my lack of finding any evidence doesn’t support or counter your argument. The minutes are a neutral finding.

I didn’t see the news story before. It suggests a different light than the minutes. However, while the news story states that 3 acres were being considered for rezoning to Neighborhood Business (B-N), for a produce stand, a three acre produce stand is pretty big. Of course a three acre restaurant is pretty big too. Regardless, the B-N zoning, as I read your zoning laws, allows a Farmer’s Market under a Conditional Use Permit only (sect. 10.10.2). It suggests that in order to open a place that serves alcohol the land would need to be zoned General Industral (I-G) (sect 10.12.1.KK) or Light Industrial, (I-L) (sect 10.13.1.O).
The General Business (B-G) (sect. 10.11.1) may allow alcohol sales under a Conditional Use, but as I read your zoning ordinance the B-N zoning would not permit a place where food is prepared for sale or alcholol is served. Of course, I’m looking at the current zoning ordinance, but looking over the change lists, the sections I mentioned above have not been touched since before your essay was written. It looks like April 22 of 2002 was the last possible time a change to those sections occurred. You may have better information about this than I do.

Back to the three acres being requested for re-zoning. It is reasonable to assume that with a parcel that large, the owner is eventually planning to develop the entire section into multiple businesses. A three acre parcel is just about the right size for a strip or corner mall, including a gas station, a small restaurant, a few local businesses like a frame shop or a stationary store. You know what I’m getting at. I freely admit, however, that there is no evidence available to support this suspicion. I also don’t know that development of this kind would bother me too much. It’s just an observation.

Obviously the various comments reported in the Commissioner’s meeting by the local newspapers by the local residents are complete garbage. That is, the complaining residents are just passing wind. There is no evidence presented that suggests that they were at all aware of the restrictions of B-N zoning, nor of any cogent arguments formed. They apparently were against rezoning the land just because they were against rezoning the land. “Change Is bad� seems to be their mantra.

Originally posted by ShankeK

But even if you still reject that, the point, that the commissioners acted against the will of the people who said to let businesses sell alcohol, and that it was zoning that allowed them to do this, still stands.

Actually, you have got a couple different levels going on here in your argument.

Again, referring to the Lincoln County zoning laws, to open a restaurant without needing to get permission from the zoning board the land would need to be classified as I-G or I-L. This wouldn’t mean that the planning commission wouldn’t also have to approve it, but the zoning board would have no say in the decision. Yes, I know that usually members of the planning commission are often also members of the zoning board, but that doesn’t invalidate my point. Which is that if the land is zoned I-G or I-L the zoning board cannot stop someone from opening a restaurant.

Serving alcohol is probably a different requirement altogether. I don’t know how North Carolina does it, but here in Michigan each municipality is entitled to a certain number of licenses for the handling of alcohol. The number of licenses available is determined by the population of the municipality. There are more licenses to sell packaged alcohol than there are to sell open alcohol, so it’s a lot easier for a store to get a sale license than a restaurant to get a serve license. There are other details, of course but I think you know what I mean.

The zoning laws do not cover the sale or serving of alcohol in any direct fashion. They cover where the establishments which can be erected on a particular piece of land. In fact, the word alcohol is mentioned only once in the Lincoln County zoning ordinance, under the definition of Nightclub. Nightclubs are allowed under a conditional use for land zoned B-G and not B-N. So this wouldn’t affect the rezoning of the parcel in question anyway.

So, while zoning does matter in determining what commercial facilities can be built, owned or operated in Lincoln County, zoning does not address the sale or serving of alcohol directly.

Now, to say that the will of the people was thwarted because the zoning ordinance allows the zoning commission to decide that a location is not suitable to be zoned at a level where alcohol could be served is again a bit of a stretch.

According to your essay, a referendum was voted into place by the residents of Lincoln County indicating that the residents of Lincoln County had no problem with alcohol being served in Lincoln County. Fair enough (although just to tweak your nose a bit, I doubt that it passed unanimously, which means that the will of the majority of the people is being forced on the minority).

This referendum was a general statement. The particular action of rezoning a piece of land to B-N is a specific occurrence. The only thing the referendum can say in this case is that the people of Lincoln County have told the public officials of Lincoln County that the possibility of a business to sell alcohol should not be a factor in an discussion made by any public official. It’s up to the integrity of the public officials to follow the public will in this fashion. If the public thinks that the public officials of Lincoln County are disobedient to the expressed intention of the people, than the public should refuse to re-elect them to their positions of public trust. If criminal activity by a public official occurs, there are other means of removing them from office.

On to other points of discussion:

Originally posted by Flex (edited for clarity)

Further, your claim is a leap of logic to take a subjective measure, “16% of North Carolina business owners consider zoning to have a positive rate of return.� covering an entire state, and say it means that the inverse of it is a statement of fact locally, “keeping away 84% of potential businesses that could move to the county.�

Originally posted by ShaneK

I said keeping away up to 84% of potential businesses. If that 84% doesn't feel zoning gives them a positive rate of return, then getting rid of the zoning laws would obviously be an incentive to get them to move to the county.

Which is still a leap of logic. 84% of the businesses do not consider zoning laws to have a positive rate of return does not equal 84% of the businesses think that getting rid of zoning laws would give them an incentive to move into the county.

84% of the businesses may have never considered the impact zoning laws have on their business, good or bad.

I’m going to grab a few things from later posters covering this particular claim:

[I]Originally posted by Thanz{/I]

I'd like to see that survey for myself. I'd like to see who they asked, where, and at what stage their business is in.

Originally posted by ShaneK

This is from my notes: they amassed a mailing list of 3,700 NC businesses, from large employers to small businesses. They weighted the samples based on whether or not they joined a public policy group, such as a local Chamber of Commerce. They were also weighted by size of the organization and by region.

They asked them to rate the rate of return on various government programs as either "good," or "positive," "fair," or "neutral," or "poor," or "negative. They then simply listed the programs and had them check which one they felt was appropriate. For the zoning issue, only 16% said "good," while 59% said "fair" and 25% said "poor."

Originally posted by Thanz

Actually, you said "84% of them said no". Which simply isn't true.

Originally posted by ShaneK

That was in response to your statement, "Ask any business person if they would rather know how the market for their product will evolve over the next five years or not. Will anyone say no?" That 84% clearly did, since only 16% agreed with that premise: that it's better to have zoning and know. That's what the "positive rate of return" means.

Yet, apparently that wasn’t the question asked by the John Locke survey, so a better response would have been. “That’s not what the survey asked, but as I interpret the data from the survey, this is what I think it means….�

Let me provide an example of someone else making the same leap. About six years ago on the national news wires a survey was reported indicating that over 40% of American’s don’t know that the earth revolves around the sun.

This piqued my interest, because I seriously doubted the result.

So, after a bit of digging I found the answer. The phone survey asking questions about scientific knowledge, in order to save money, was added to another phone survey being done. The survey questions being asked about scientific knowledge were questions 112-123. Which means that even assuming each question takes only 30 seconds to answer, the survey respondents had already been on the phone for an hour. This is a good indication that the sample was no longer representative of the general population, but had been self-selected to people willing to stay on the phone for an hour answering questions.

But I continued my investigation and found the nice woman who was the originator of the survey and she was more than happy to fax the questions to me. There was no question concerning the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. The only astronomically related question was about the length of the year. The question was “How many days are there in a year? A) 360 B) 24 C) 365 D) 52.� To me, the question is really more about vocabulary. But to many people, there is no correct answer because there is no integral division of the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun compared to the number of times the earth rotates around it’s own axis. Finally, because the question was so poorly worded, many people didn’t answer it, and there may be some people who deliberately answered it incorrectly, and there may be some people who truly didn’t know.

The high rate of poor results for this particular question resulted in at least one reporter paying close attention to it. The interpretation the reporter gave for that result was that if people don’t know the length of the year, then they don’t know that the earth revolves around the sun. This leap of logic was how the story was written, and the astonishing report was picked up by the wire services.

This is a real problem with any sort of polling. It’s not exactly a good indicator until you know the exact wording of the question, the population of both the people answering the question and the non-responders, the position of the question in a poll makes a difference, if the question is closed or open (if there is a way for the respondent to fill an answer not included in the choices, the question is open), etc.

According to your notes, the question asked was sometime like, “What is the rate of return on zoning? Good, fair, or poor?� Do you understand why this is a poorly asked question? People responding that the rate of return is poor are not by definition against zoning, they may love zoning, but feel that because zoning has (as they understand it) no effect on the rate of return for their business they indicate that the rate of return is poor.

The John Locke website does provide a link to the original report. However that link is apparently broken, so I have requested that they either restore the link, or just e-mail me a copy of the report. I did this last night and they suggest that is will take at long as two working days to generate a response. So, I’m going to stop discussing this report until after I get a chance to read it.

Originally posed by Flex

They define the local playing field for businesses. Businesses, in general, do not like uncertainty. Zoning laws eliminate much of that uncertainty by defining the minimum standards of behavior in that community.

Originally posed by ShaneK

Do you have any kind of evidence for this at all? Because the vast majority of business owners disagree.

Disagree with which one of my statements? Uncertainty?

Originally posted by ShaneK

And businesses thrive in uncertainty. Heck, if they didn't like uncertainty, they wouldn't start the business; most investment schemes give you a higher rate of return than starting your own business. So your whole point is based on a misunderstanding of how business owners operate.

I think that Thanz’s response was pretty good here,

Originally posted by Thanz

Balderdash. Ask any business person if they would rather know how the market for their product will evolve over the next five years or not. Will anyone say no? And you are mixing up "uncertainty" with "risk". They are not the same thing. People invest in their own business for a variety of reasons, but generally they do so as they see the potential reward outbalancing the risk. They try to limit the uncertainty as much as possible.

However I suspect that you are unaware of the Ellsberg 2-Color paradox. Probably the best article I could quickly find on this particular problem was published in the “Journal of Risk and Uncertainty� Boston, Mar. 2001, Vol. 22, Iss. 2; pg. 129. By Clare Chua Chow and Rakesh K Sarin.

I could just say that the article proves my point, but instead I’ll summarize the research for you.

In 1961 Ellsbreg pointed out in the Quarterly Journal of Economics that people would rather bet on known than unknown probabilities. The particular test was drawing balls from an urn. A person had two choices, draw from an urn with 50 yellow and 50 white balls inside, or draw from an urn with 100 palls inside but in unknown proportions. People generally preferred to draw from the urn where the proportions were known over the unknown.

Subsequent research has pretty well established that even on events where the outcome cannot be known in advance, like a football game, people are far more willing to bet if they have some knowledge of the teams involved than if the outcome is strictly by random chance. There is a great deal of literature available on this phenomenon. The test condition have been manipulated to the point where avoidance of ambiguity is overcome by the potential rewards, but the results are pretty conclusive, people, including the people owning and operating businesses, prefer to have uncertainly reduced as much as possible.

Risk is a completely separate issue.

Originally posted by Flex

the assumption that zoning ordinances make homes cost more.

Originally posted by ShaneK

It's not an assumption; it's a scientific conclusion. See Glaeser, Edward L. and Joseph Gyourko, The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability, Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper #1948, Harvard University, Canbridge, Massachusetts, March 2002.

Okay, I have that paper here. But before I address the results of the paper I want to take a moment to address another thing which is common on many forums. This is not something to criticize ShaneK about, but a general problem on discussion boards which seems to lead to name calling rather than rational discussion.
Originally posted by Flex

I’m going to try to track down those sources you mention. You realize, I’m sure, that just quoting a reference is a poor debating method and more likely to irritate your opponent than convince them.

Originally posted by ShaneK

This is a skeptics' board. I expect higher standards here.

I must not have been clear in my statement. When a claim is being argued about, making reference to an authority without attempting to paraphrase that authority is a mistake. In making reference to Ellsberg’s 2-color paradox, I could have just named the paper and said, “See, this proves my point.�

Doing so means that anyone who disagrees with me has got to take the time to track down the paper, read it, analyze it, possibly pay for it. While there are some people around here who enjoy doing such a thing, they are the exception, not the rule.

So when I said that just quoting a reference means you are irritating them, I mean that most people get irritated when asked to accept some authority which they haven’t read and are going to have to devote some of their resources in finding and understanding it.

I recall a few years ago when the infamous book _The_Bell_Curve_ came out. There were radio interviews with the authors, and to just about every question that was asked of them about the statistics used, the conclusions they arrived at, the sources of the data, and how the authors knew how to account for various factors in the data, the authors asked, “Have you read the book.� Since probably none of the various people conducting the interviews had probably read the eight hundred page monster, the answer was always, “No, I have not read the book.� To which the authors invariably replied, “Read the book, and then you can talk to us with authority.�

Balderdash.

My point is, when you quote a study, or reference a book, or refer to something outside of the main discussion, if you paraphrase what the reference is saying, you are less likely to find people getting irritated with you. Do so even if you provide a link to the article. It will definitely reduce irritation to others.

In this case I do not blame ShaneK, I’m taking as given that over the three years he claims to have been debating this issue on this board he is more than likely to have already paraphrased the study referenced. So it is only my own relatively recent arrival to this board that prevented me from seeing his interpretation of the article in question.

Back to “The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability�, Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper #1948, by E. Glaeser and J. Gyourko.

The paper is very interesting, but doesn’t actually prove your point. And in the following quote you really are miss-using their numbers:

Originally posted by ShaneK

If you look at the Harvard survey I cited above, on average in urban and suburban areas of the country the price of a buildable quarter-acre lot is $15,409 without zoning (the real price of the lot), while zoning adds $126,643 to the price.

Since I assume you are familiar with the paper I will quoting some specific tables which may make less sense to other people reading this message. I’ll try to be specific, but if anyone else loses the thread of my discussion, please accept my apologies in advance.

The Harvard study is interesting because it examines the supply side of the housing market. The authors are attempting to answer the question, “Does America face an affordable housing crisis and, if so, why?�
The conclusion that the authors reach is that in most places of America the cost of construction is close to the cost of housing. However, they identify some areas where the costs of housing are far greater than the costs of construction. So they are trying to figure out what is special about those locations.

They are very clear that they are not looking at the demand side of the problem at all (other than as a comparison). Further, they admit that “High cost areas generally have either very attractive local amenities (great weather or good schools) or strong labor markets.� The traditional approach to this problem is that land is, by it’s very nature, limited in supply, and so increased demand will drive land prices higher. Note, this price increase is independent of construction costs.

The authors suggest an alternative hypothesis to the traditional classical approach. Their submitted hypothesis build on the idea that there is seems to be plenty of land available in high cost areas, which should push the costs for purchasing down and make the housing prices fairly close to the costs of construction. They submit the hypothesis that the reason that land prices are high, and thus costs are so much greater than the costs of construction in those areas is due to zoning restrictions.

Now that chain of reasoning is not unassailable. There are other potential reasons for an area to have a low housing density (and thus plenty of land available) besides zoning. There are plenty of demand side reasons including the desire to own larger parcels (for a wide variety of reasons like owning a horse or other livestock, growing a vegetable garden, giving the children a place to play, etc.), the perception that smaller schools mean better learning, in a later paper by E. Glaeser, the argument is made that poor people gravitate toward cities because of lower transportation costs, which implies that people living in less dense areas are richer and can afford more, etc. The list is not endless, but there are plenty of examples on the demand side which could impact the results of the authors paper. This fact is tacitly admitted by the authors by the statement at the bottom of page 5, “After all, if a homeowner does not value the land on his plot very much, he would sub-divide and sell it to someone else.�

What the authors are saying is that zoning prevents people who don’t care about having large lots from sub-dividing their lots into smaller ones and selling them. This is the cost they are looking for. The paper makes no claim about how many people actually do care about having large lots. In other words, zoning helps reduce land speculation, which is certainly true.

But their biggest mistake that I see, is the assumption that the hedonic price model they use, which includes existing construction in the land cost per square foot numbers they arrive at, can be easily compared to a land cost per square foot area calculated with current construction costs.

In the size of the markets they consider, only a small percentage of the house sales are due to new construction. This greatly affects the hedonic model, and also the imputed land cost from Means data. They also depreciate all existing home prices. That is, a 25-year-old house has a lower replacement value than a new house. They do not attempt to justify this depreciation, but admit that it is always negative (See Appendix 1).

Now, to clear up some confusion about what the report is showing.

The sales price of a home P(L) is suggested as being (Material and Labor Construction Costs(K)) + (Any demand-based affect including zoning(T)) + (demand-free price of land(p))*(Area of Land(L)). Or, more shortly, P(L) = K + T + pL. The first derivative of this equation in respect to L (the area of land) is P’(L) = p. P’(L) is also the slope of the graph showing the of rise in housing price respect to area of land in a given market.

So, assumption #1, P’(L) is linear. That is, there is a linear relationship in a given market between comparable houses on differing sizes of plots of land. A two bedroom ranch with a basement on a half-acre lot selling for $100,000 will sell for $200,000 on a one-acre lot and $400,000 on a two acre lot. This would suggest a P’(L) = 2.

Problem #2.
Originally posted by ShaneK

on average in urban and suburban areas of the country the price of a buildable quarter-acre lot is $15,409

While you didn’t show how you arrived at this number, I assume you simply took the reported P’(L) value $1.415 and multiplied by 10890, the number of feet in an acre. The trouble is that the $1.415 figure was determined by the authors as the cost of land ignoring any demand-side considerations.

Another calculation which can be performed is by examining the original equation in a different way. P(L) = K + T + pL. Also can be expressed as P(L) – K = T + pL, or even (P(L) – K)/L = T/L + p. The authors can determine the P(L) from the estimated sales price of the home, K from the current costs of construction of a similar home, and L from the reported lot sizes. This allows the authors to calculate T/L + p.

By comparing the difference between the two calculations, P’(L) = p and (P(L)-K)/L = T/L + p you can get some indications as to the size of T/L. In other words how much additional factors besides the cost of the house and the demand-free cost of the land effect the price of a house. The trouble with the conclusions the authors reached is that they assume that all the T/L factors are accounted for by zoning laws.

The authors present their case three ways, but always use the same data from the same original calculations, to it is not surprising that they should reach the same result.

To give them some credit, on page 12 they touch on the subject, but make the claim that zoning laws reflect a number of demand-side restrictions. They well might, but they are being disingenuous when they state in their conclusion “While all of our evidence is suggestive, not definitive, it seems to suggest that this form of government regulation is responsible for high housing costs where they exist.�

I would like to end the discussion of this paper with the following quote from their conclusion. We have not considered the benefits from zoning which could certainly outweigh these costs. … Of course, it may well be that the positive impact of zoning on housing process is zoning’s strongest appeal. If we move to a regime with weaker zoning rules, then current homeowners in high cost areas are likely to lose substantially. To make this politically feasible, it is crucial that any political reform also try to compensate the losers for this change.

Not that I believe they have shown conclusively that zoning laws increase home prices.

On to other things.

Originally posted by Flex

assumption that people are unable to buy a home because of this increased cost.

Originally posted by ShaneK

Most people have to get a mortgage to do so. With lower-income families, they will have a harder time doing so since the mortgage companies use income to measure the debt burden. With housing prices being higher, the payments would be higher, and so fewer families would be able to finance the home and have the payment within their debt burden.

You don’t think raising the minimum wage would help here, do you? I thought not.

The study you quote clearly stated that in most areas of the country, including many inner-city areas, the cost to purchase many home are between 90% and 140% of the construction costs (See table 2). These are areas with some of the greatest zoning restrictions.

Originally from ShaneK after I made a comment about building codes and cost of construction.

Also, zoning has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with building codes.

Some zoning codes discuss building and fire codes, others don’t. Since we are really talking about land use, and not building or fire codes, or anything of that nature, I’ll let this part drop.

Originally by ShaneK

You're missing a step. The state is composed of citizens, who created the state by ratifying a Constitution. It's the Constitution that says what is and is not appropriate for the government. Amazing how many people skip that.

I was speaking in a general fashion, not about any specific nation. The citizens who create the state could use any number of methods to form the state, and a Constitution is only one among many methods.

Originally by ShaneK

That community only has power because of its charter from the state. The state is delegating certain powers it holds to the community because it's better to deal with it on a smaller scale. But it does only mean that the state can delegate the authority it has under its and under the Federal Constitutions.

Here we come to one of the areas which I think we will never be able to agree upon. The fact that the state grants a charter to a community, delegating some of it’s powers to the community, does not prevent the community (comprised of citizens of the state) from adopting additional powers through agreement among it’s members. Provided those additional powers are not interfering with the powers of the higher levels of government.

For the record, and as I’m sure you are aware, the Supreme Court has heard similar arguments for decades concerning zoning. A quick Lexus/Nexus search reveals 250. Here’s one that uses the same argument of constitutionality:
VILLAGE OF EUCLID ET AL. v. AMBLER REALTY COMPANY

No. 31

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

272 U.S. 365; 47 S. Ct. 114; 71 L. Ed. 303; 1926 U.S. LEXIS 8; 4 Ohio L. Abs. 816; 54 A.L.R. 1016


January 27, 1926, Argued
November 22, 1926, Decided.

From the opinion.

It is not necessary to set forth the provisions of the Ohio Constitution which are thought to be infringed. The question is the same under both Constitutions, namely, as stated by appellee: Is the ordinance invalid in that it violates the constitutional protection "to the right of property in the appellee by attempted regulations under the guise of the police power, which are unreasonable and confiscatory?"

Building zone laws are of modern origin. They began in this country about twenty-five years ago. Until recent years, urban life was comparatively simple; but with the great increase and concentration of population, problems have developed, and constantly are developing, which require, and will continue to require, additional restrictions in respect of the use and occupation of private lands in [*387] urban communities. Regulations, the wisdom, necessity and validity of which, as applied to existing conditions, are so apparent that they are now uniformly sustained, a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive. Such regulations are sustained, under the complex conditions of our day, for reasons analogous to those which justify traffic regulations, which, before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street railways, would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unreasonable. And in this there is no inconsistency, for while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world, it is impossible that it should be otherwise. But although a degree of elasticity is thus imparted, not to the meaning, but to the application of constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances, which, after giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly not to conform to the Constitution, of course, must fall.

Moving on.

Originally posted by Flex

Couldn’t you look at zoning ordinances as deed restrictions automatically applying to a wide area?

Originally posed by ShaneK

No, because agreements made under threat of force are invalid.

Yep, here we are again. All government degrades to the use of a gun. How is a deed restriction not enforced, eventually, at the point of a gun?

Originally by ShaneK

We were talking about deed restrictions here, not zoning. The court of equity is how you enforce deed restrictions since you need to compel performance.

It strikes me that if deed restrictions are enforced by courts of equity (and I don’t know if they are or not), then compelling performance is accomplished, eventually, at the point of a gun.

Originally posted by Flex

In other words, the private companies didn’t really care who got the business, so long as one of them got all the business.

Originally posted by ShaneK

Um, the cable companies were already franchies in their areas. So calling them "private companies" was disingenuous. The government has pretty much always made them exclusive franchises.

In this particular case, the government was attempting to grant more than one company the right of access. The original ten-year franchise rights given to Time Warner had expired. Time Warner cable, now called Bright-House, would have owned the transmission lines, but Comcast, the other big player in this area, would be allowed to use them for a rental fee from Time-Warner.

Comcast wanted to buy the transmission lines outright and have exclusive access, while Time-Warner wouldn’t sign any deals unless Comcast was excluded.

As for my terminology, which you seem to be pointing at, while both Time Warner and Comcast are publicly traded, are thinking that they are not considered part of the private sector?


Originally posted by Flex

The first claim is variable, some public sector jobs seem to be inefficient, but that’s not proof that all of them are.

Originally posted by ShaneK

There's that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" claim again.

Which is perfectly appropriate to point out. Your claim is that ALL public sector jobs are less efficient than the same job done in the private sector. I’m just pointing out that the use of ALL in this context is not proven. I don’t need to show anything.

Originally posted by Flex

and no reason to suppose that prices will drop even if supply increases.

Originally posted by ShaneK

Sure, if you ignore all of the known laws of economics. But those of us who understand them know that as the supply curve shifts to the right, equilibrium price drops.

That depends entirely on where you are sitting on a curve for a particular good. And what other factors, including both factors from the public and private sector are influencing the price. Not to mention that demand can, and will, shift. Supply and demand curves are both useful tools in a general sense, but are best understood as explaining historical data, not in anticipating future trends.

For example, we had a building boom out here about ten years ago when a particular town agreed to allow a developer to buy most of the outlying farmland. The developer built houses, advertised them as being out in the country and sold them more than a similar priced house closer to the city. The developer created a demand.

To suppose that supply can change and demand will be held constant, a requirement for ensuring that the equilibrium drops, is possible only in theory. Which is why economics can explain historical data far better than it can predict future trends.

Originally posted by Flex

Or have a private business run the park, charge money for people to get in and fence the place off to prevent the free loaders from getting in.

Originally posted by ShaneK

Or have a private business run the park, but have it funded through donations. Or any other of a zillion different options you're ignoring.

No I’m not ignoring them, just pointing out that in any of those zillion different options you want to propose, there is an increased risk of a private company just deciding it’s had enough and leaving. That’s not possible with a publicly run park with public approval (through the elected representatives). If a public official closes a park, you can remove him from office.

I just read the Saltzman essay on Houston. There are a few things that don’t make any sense, for example, if lack of zoning boosted the home prices, than what was all the folderol about zoning increasing the costs of housing? It seems to me that a better explanation for the fluctuation of home costs is on the demand side of things.

Then it also mentioned several times that Houston has some very strict ordinances. Is it possible that Houston has what is effectively all the same restrictions contained in the ordinances as a average town has in the zoning laws? I don’t know, but there is nothing in the article, which is obviously written by a man who is against zoning.

Originally posted by davefoc

On the other hand, this kind of zoning has the effect of pricing housing above what many people can afford and it reduces low end housing to the point that there can be significant shortages which exacerbate a homeless problem.

Assuming that the problem is that low end housing is prohibited by zoning. The report mentioned prominently above “The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability� looks at the supply side of housing, and deliberately ignores the demand side of the equation. The results they achieve are not conclusive, but they do suggest that in most areas of the country the costs of a house is pretty close to the costs of construction and that in most of the country there is no housing shortage. Hey, they could all come up here and live in Detroit, according to the above report, in 1999 54% of the houses in Detroit cost less than 90% of the cost of new construction. I don’t know that the claim that zoning makes the price of a house increase has been shown true. After all the Houston article said that the communities which had zoning laws actually saw a decrease in the prices of homes. The demand for housing, including school districts, weather, traffic, noise, lot size, smells, etc., all seem to have a far greater impact on housing costs than zoning.

Originally posted by Flex

I expect a reasonable explanation for the adoption of zoning laws.

Originally posted by ShaneK

They always have a reasonable explanation. In the case of zoning, it's to protect your property and your family in case someone builds a phosphorous mine next to your house (no lying; I've actually heard this as a reason for zoning!).

This is not what I meant by my original question. A little bit of research on my own suggests that most large cities put zoning laws in place around 1900. Smaller towns got around to zoning by about 1950, while local municipalities started zoning with the building boom in the 1950’s but as urban centers have expanded so has zoning. I know what the rationalizations are these days, but what was the rationalization back in 1900 in the big cities? Anyone know? Or am I going to have to dig through my library?

Originally posted by ShaneK

This is exposed for what it is, by the failure of anyone to meet my challenge:

Pick any place without zoning. Like Houston, TX, or rural places like Trimble County, KY. Several NC counties have no zoning, and neither do many other counties in states all over the country. Find one problem in any of those areas that we need zoning to prevent that also does not occur in areas with zoning. You need to do that to even establish that zoning has ever solved even a single problem.

So far, no one has been able to do it. Can you?

You realize that your challenge is meaningless.

Your challenge asks for an example of a place which has a problem ONLY zoning could solve. As soon as someone brings up a place they think may fit your criteria, you can grab one of the other many ways societies have developed to solve the problems which arise by living in close proximity to each other and say, “See! This is a solution to the problem without requiring zoning!�

Sorry. I know that I can’t win at that game, so I’m not even going to play.

The question you should be asking, both to yourself and to anyone else out here is: “Is zoning a better method to solve the problems than other methods.� This is really what we are debating. We are not debating that other methods have been found to work.

There is one final thought I’m going to leave you with, and then I probably will not be able to get back to this debate until Wednesday or Thursday.

What are the benefits of zoning?
What are the costs of zoning?
What are the benefits of alternative methods of controlled development?
What are the costs of alternative methods of controlled development?

Until we can answer these four questions to everyone’s satisfaction, this debate is endless.

Cheers,

-Flex

P.S. I’m not done responding to all the posts made in the last few days, but I need to finish this post now. See ya. –F.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Flex
Yes, I’ve seen a great deal of variety among meeting minutes. Some places record everything, some places only record a summary. I’ve heard several arguments both ways, including a rather cynical one suggesting that the real political power rests in the hands of those who take the minutes. In one municipality around here, there is a fellow who videotapes every session of the board. No one on the board, who I know pretty well, knows why he does it. The meetings are open, and so long as he remains unobtrusive no one is going to try and stop him, but no one has asked and he hasn’t volunteered a reason. He doesn’t have to give a reason, he’s welcome to tape all the meetings he wants.

Actually, they do audio-tape the meetings, but only the commissioners are miked. I went and got a copy of the tape of that meeting from the clerk, intending to put it on my website, but the lady's comments were completely inaudible.

I didn’t see the news story before. It suggests a different light than the minutes. However, while the news story states that 3 acres were being considered for rezoning to Neighborhood Business (B-N), for a produce stand, a three acre produce stand is pretty big. Of course a three acre restaurant is pretty big too.

Keep in mind that this is the boonies. Three acres is nothing here.

The General Business (B-G) (sect. 10.11.1) may allow alcohol sales under a Conditional Use, but as I read your zoning ordinance the B-N zoning would not permit a place where food is prepared for sale or alcholol is served. Of course, I’m looking at the current zoning ordinance, but looking over the change lists, the sections I mentioned above have not been touched since before your essay was written. It looks like April 22 of 2002 was the last possible time a change to those sections occurred. You may have better information about this than I do.

Well, September of 2002 was when the referenda passed to let restaurants and other businesses sell alcohol. So that would have obsoleted those parts of the zoning ordinance. They probably should have rewritten those sections to allow for it; that's government for you.

Back to the three acres being requested for re-zoning. It is reasonable to assume that with a parcel that large, the owner is eventually planning to develop the entire section into multiple businesses.

Again, three acres just isn't that big a deal in these parts. I wasn't at the planning board, so I can only speculate, but a lot of these rezoning requests come from people wanting to run a business on their existing property. There are quite a few produce stands, barber shops, etc. sitting on the same property as the owner's home. If his 3-acre parcel of land is his home, then he may have wanted to open the grill on the part of his property facing the road and still live on the rest. It's a lot easier to just request rezoning for the entire 3 acres since any buildings and uses that exist on the land at the time are always grandfathered in; so it just doesn't make sense to parcel out the land again and have it rezoned, particularly since you don't know for sure if they'll approve the rezoning request.

A three acre parcel is just about the right size for a strip or corner mall, including a gas station, a small restaurant, a few local businesses like a frame shop or a stationary store. You know what I’m getting at.

Oh, I understand what you're getting at. But that part of the county isn't going to see anything of the kind for awhile.

Besides, this all kind of seems beside the point. The point is, the people said "let businesses sell alcohol," and the commissioners used the zoning to oppress a man wanting to own a business because they were afraid he would sell alcohol. So they weren't acting for the will of the people.

Serving alcohol is probably a different requirement altogether. I don’t know how North Carolina does it, but here in Michigan each municipality is entitled to a certain number of licenses for the handling of alcohol. The number of licenses available is determined by the population of the municipality.

I'm actually not sure how NC does it, either. Being a non-drinker, it's just not a subject of interest to me. But again, this is beside the point I was making in pointing this example out.

There are more licenses to sell packaged alcohol than there are to sell open alcohol, so it’s a lot easier for a store to get a sale license than a restaurant to get a serve license. There are other details, of course but I think you know what I mean.

I know that, literally the day the referenda went into effect, grocery stores, convenience stores, and restaurants all over the county were selling alcohol. They had, if memory serves, a month between the passing of the referenda and the time of it going into effect, so apparently it's not that difficult.

The zoning laws do not cover the sale or serving of alcohol in any direct fashion. They cover where the establishments which can be erected on a particular piece of land.

Of course. But the basis which they denied the rezoning was the fear that he would sell alcohol. The zoning laws many not say the first word about it, but the Commissioners can still exercise their power based on whatever they want. And that is exactly the problem. As Michael Cloud said, "The problem is not the abuse of power; it is the power to abuse."

According to your essay, a referendum was voted into place by the residents of Lincoln County indicating that the residents of Lincoln County had no problem with alcohol being served in Lincoln County.

Actually, there were four referenda on that ballot that passed.

Fair enough (although just to tweak your nose a bit, I doubt that it passed unanimously, which means that the will of the majority of the people is being forced on the minority).

When the will of the majority is freedom and property rights, I have no problem with that. The only problem is when the majority tries to subvert the rights of the minority.

This referendum was a general statement. The particular action of rezoning a piece of land to B-N is a specific occurrence.

If he'd had the rezining in place before the referenda, the referenda would have allowed him to sell alcohol. So I'd say this is an invalid point.

[qoute]The only thing the referendum can say in this case is that the people of Lincoln County have told the public officials of Lincoln County that the possibility of a business to sell alcohol should not be a factor in an discussion made by any public official.[/quote]

But they did make it a factor.

It’s up to the integrity of the public officials to follow the public will in this fashion.

And my point is that they absolutely cannot be trusted to do so.

If the public thinks that the public officials of Lincoln County are disobedient to the expressed intention of the people, than the public should refuse to re-elect them to their positions of public trust.

Well, only one of the two incumbents seeking re-election last year, and neither of the two former commissioners, made it past the primary. That should tell people something.

Which is still a leap of logic. 84% of the businesses do not consider zoning laws to have a positive rate of return does not equal 84% of the businesses think that getting rid of zoning laws would give them an incentive to move into the county.

Again, I said "up to." No, we can't tell the exact percentage from this survey, but the fact that it could potentially be as high as 84% is staggering.

Even if we only go with the 25% who said that zoning laws definitely give a negative rate of return, that's still a lot of businesses. What if one out of every four businesses in your county suddenly went out of business? What if 25% of the workforce in your county found themselves to be unemployed?

Yet, apparently that wasn’t the question asked by the John Locke survey, so a better response would have been. “That’s not what the survey asked, but as I interpret the data from the survey, this is what I think it means….�

Your point is taken, although I'd hoped that would have been obvious by the context. I guess it wasn't.

According to your notes, the question asked was sometime like, “What is the rate of return on zoning? Good, fair, or poor?� Do you understand why this is a poorly asked question?

No, since this question was asked of businesses, which evaluate the rate of return on almost everything they do or face, including the zoning laws.

People responding that the rate of return is poor are not by definition against zoning, they may love zoning, but feel that because zoning has (as they understand it) no effect on the rate of return for their business they indicate that the rate of return is poor.

That they may feel that other aspects of zoning are desirable is beside the point. The point is, what reactions do businesses have to zoning? If they don't feel it gives them a positive rate of return, that is a disincentive to move a business to the county.

Disagree with which one of my statements? Uncertainty? [/b

That businesses prefer zoning laws because they eliminate uncertainty.

[b]In 1961 Ellsbreg pointed out in the Quarterly Journal of Economics that people would rather bet on known than unknown probabilities. The particular test was drawing balls from an urn. A person had two choices, draw from an urn with 50 yellow and 50 white balls inside, or draw from an urn with 100 palls inside but in unknown proportions. People generally preferred to draw from the urn where the proportions were known over the unknown.

This might be cogent as to investors wanting to invest money in a business, but as I've already covered that's very different than why a person would start a business of his own. Investors are concerned with the bottom line: making their money back. The business owner most certainly has reasons other than money for doing so, otherwise he'd simply put his money into a more secure investment. His motivation may be to be his own boss, set his own hours, work from his own home, spend more time with his family, do what he really loves but has difficulty finding a job doing that particular thing, whatever. Most business owners could make a lot more money working for someone else; I know I could. But there are other motivations at stake here, so your analogy doesn't really apply to them.

I really don't see how anyone seeing the data can argue this point: without zoning, there would be more people creating small businesses of their own and more larger businesses moving into the county.

The authors suggest an alternative hypothesis to the traditional classical approach. Their submitted hypothesis build on the idea that there is seems to be plenty of land available in high cost areas, which should push the costs for purchasing down and make the housing prices fairly close to the costs of construction. They submit the hypothesis that the reason that land prices are high, and thus costs are so much greater than the costs of construction in those areas is due to zoning restrictions.

I'd say that's a good summary of the report.

But their biggest mistake that I see, is the assumption that the hedonic price model they use, which includes existing construction in the land cost per square foot numbers they arrive at, can be easily compared to a land cost per square foot area calculated with current construction costs.

I just want to point out that this part of the report is what I used to make the claim; that's why I've snipped out the rest of it.

While you didn’t show how you arrived at this number, I assume you simply took the reported P’(L) value $1.415 and multiplied by 10890, the number of feet in an acre. The trouble is that the $1.415 figure was determined by the authors as the cost of land ignoring any demand-side considerations.

Well, of course you invoke ceteris paribus in all such situations. With there being a multitude of different things that can affect the price of land, this seems very reasonable to me.

And by the way, I did use that calculation, but I also double-checked it by using the data from their tables to average the figure and got the same number. I did it about three or four different ways, and got the same answer each time. So it seems right.

To give them some credit, on page 12 they touch on the subject, but make the claim that zoning laws reflect a number of demand-side restrictions. They well might, but they are being disingenuous when they state in their conclusion “While all of our evidence is suggestive, not definitive, it seems to suggest that this form of government regulation is responsible for high housing costs where they exist.�

Well, actually, they say:

Our third empirical approach relies on the existence of zoning. If we have measures of the difficulty of obtaining building permits in a particular area, then we should expect them to drive up housing costs (holding B constant). This is just documenting that dP/dT>0. Obviously, this approach is likely to be compromised if high amenity areas impose more stringent zoning. Nonetheless, a connection between the strength of zoning rules and housing prices seems like a final test for the zoning view. As an added test, 14 across communities, if we have measures of zoning controls, we would expect the estimated value of T/L to be higher.

In any case, it's obvious that zoning does have a significant effect on the supply side, pushing it to the left and thus increasing the equilibrium price.

I would like to end the discussion of this paper with the following quote from their conclusion.

But as I've pointed out, the factors that may cause people to demand an area with zoning would also cause demand for deed restrictions. And with deed restrictions, you have a much more market-driven way of dealing with problems.

On to other things.

With that, I'll make my comments to the rest of your post in a separate post of my own.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Flex
You don’t think raising the minimum wage would help here, do you? I thought not.

Nope. That just results in unemployment. We had a really big thread on that here once, and it was so good I decided to archive it:

http://www.shanekillian.org/jref/minimum-wage.html

Some zoning codes discuss building and fire codes, others don’t.

Well, I consider building and fire codes to be a separate issue. If we had them combined, and someone proposed a method of getting rid of zoning while at the same time putting the zoning and fire codes into a separate ordinance, I'd get behind it. But that doesn't mean I'm OK with building and fire codes; I just consider it a separate issue.

Here we come to one of the areas which I think we will never be able to agree upon. The fact that the state grants a charter to a community, delegating some of it’s powers to the community, does not prevent the community (comprised of citizens of the state) from adopting additional powers through agreement among it’s members. Provided those additional powers are not interfering with the powers of the higher levels of government.

That's just wrong, in more ways than one. Cities and counties in the US get their powers from the state. They have no Constitutional authority to get them from anywhere else. The Constitution, in every case, is supreme.

For the record, and as I’m sure you are aware, the Supreme Court has heard similar arguments for decades concerning zoning. A quick Lexus/Nexus search reveals 250. Here’s one that uses the same argument of constitutionality:

But that's just the same kind of big government apologetics we always hear from those trying to avoid the fact that their policies violate the Constitution. How any reasonable person can think these arguments are valid is beyond me.

Yep, here we are again. All government degrades to the use of a gun. How is a deed restriction not enforced, eventually, at the point of a gun?

Again, you're ignoring the difference, which I have pointed out time and time and time again. With deed restrictions, all you're doing is holding someone to something they have personally, individually, and voluntarily agreed to. That's their responsibility, as it's a part of their right to contract. That is not the case with zoning, which uses force to restrict people who don't want it, never agreed to it, and are even personally against it.

In this particular case, the government was attempting to grant more than one company the right of access. The original ten-year franchise rights given to Time Warner had expired. Time Warner cable, now called Bright-House, would have owned the transmission lines, but Comcast, the other big player in this area, would be allowed to use them for a rental fee from Time-Warner.

Comcast wanted to buy the transmission lines outright and have exclusive access, while Time-Warner wouldn’t sign any deals unless Comcast was excluded.

And so this happened because Time-Warner was given a monopoly for the cable lines. So, how is this a problem with the free market?

Which is perfectly appropriate to point out. Your claim is that ALL public sector jobs are less efficient than the same job done in the private sector. I’m just pointing out that the use of ALL in this context is not proven. I don’t need to show anything.

When did I use the word "all" in this context?

That depends entirely on where you are sitting on a curve for a particular good. And what other factors, including both factors from the public and private sector are influencing the price. Not to mention that demand can, and will, shift.

But again, when you're examining things economically, you use ceteris paribus to examine the effect. You assume that all other things are equal other than what you're changing. That's how it works.

To suppose that supply can change and demand will be held constant, a requirement for ensuring that the equilibrium drops, is possible only in theory.

It's not a supposition. Ceteris paribus is what you do to properly examine the effect of something.

Besides, I couldn't help but notice that you said the town "allowed" the developer to do this. This means that no one was allowed to do it before. Forgiving the fact that you're using a government action to try and describe a free market effect, you're ignoring the fact that no one was "allowed" to do it before—therefore the supply in question didn't even exist before then! You have no way of knowing whether or not the demand for houses in the country was there all the time—and from the sounds of things, it most certainly was. The land was there, waiting to fill this demand, but wasn't being allowed by the government to do so. So for all you know, demand was constant.

[qoute]Which is why economics can explain historical data far better than it can predict future trends.[/quote]

Well, the same is true of any of the nonphysical sciences. And even some of the physical sciences, such as meteorology.

[qoute]No I’m not ignoring them, just pointing out that in any of those zillion different options you want to propose, there is an increased risk of a private company just deciding it’s had enough and leaving.[/quote]

Companies don't just up and leave. They do something with the assets.

That’s not possible with a publicly run park with public approval (through the elected representatives). If a public official closes a park, you can remove him from office.

If only that were as simple as you make it out to be. Besides, that official is doing a lot more than just running the parks.

Assuming that the problem is that low end housing is prohibited by zoning. The report mentioned prominently above “The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability� looks at the supply side of housing, and deliberately ignores the demand side of the equation.

But how is the demand for low-end housing to be met? If zoning increases the costs, then in order to provide low-end housing costs elsewhere have to be cut. You could cut down on construction costs, but doing so would almost certainly violate building codes. You could cram more houses into a tighter space, but then you'd be violating density requirements. You could have multiple-story dwellings, but then you'd be discriminating against the handicapped who can't go up the stairs, and you're forced to put in expensive elevators. And even if you do manage to make the houses cheap enough without violating these regulations, you just get labelled a "slum lord" and have all sorts of government mandates piled on to you, which result in you having to make improvements, which cost money, and which force you to raise the price of the units...at which point you're accused of "gouging."

[qoute]I don’t know that the claim that zoning makes the price of a house increase has been shown true. After all the Houston article said that the communities which had zoning laws actually saw a decrease in the prices of homes. The demand for housing, including school districts, weather, traffic, noise, lot size, smells, etc., all seem to have a far greater impact on housing costs than zoning.[/quote]

Or being near places of business? Here's the part of the essay you're referring to:

With zoning, a city can regulate the location and design of all land uses, from houses to gas stations to bars. Its supporters said that homes unprotected by zoning risk a loss in property value if a business or apartment locates nearby.

Not necessarily. Drive around central Houston and you’ll find plenty of expensive new houses built across the street from or adjacent to existing commercial or apartment buildings. The people who build and buy these homes are not dumb. There is obviously a strong market for homes in convenient urban settings.

This casts doubt on the need for zoning to protect or boost property values. Within Houston are two small, independent cities, Bellaire and West University, with zoning. Between 1970 and 1980 home prices in Bellaire and West University climbed more slowly than in many Houston communities, including those lacking private neighborhood restrictions against businesses and apartments.[4] In fact, between 1990 and 1993, average annual home sale prices actually fell in the two zoned cities while sprinting up in a number of Houston neighborhoods, restricted and unrestricted.[5] The financial risks to homes unshielded by zoning are, at best, greatly overstated.

So the essay is hardly saying what you're painting it to say.

Your challenge asks for an example of a place which has a problem ONLY zoning could solve.

That would seem to be reasonable, as the claim is that we need zoning to solve it.

As soon as someone brings up a place they think may fit your criteria, you can grab one of the other many ways societies have developed to solve the problems which arise by living in close proximity to each other and say, “See! This is a solution to the problem without requiring zoning!�

And that would be a proper rebuttal, as we obviously wouldn't need zoning to solve it.

The question you should be asking, both to yourself and to anyone else out here is: “Is zoning a better method to solve the problems than other methods.� This is really what we are debating. We are not debating that other methods have been found to work.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it ignores the decimation of property rights that zoning comprises. This is America. You don't get to take away people's rights because it's the best way to solve something. We could probably cut down on crime by having the police install video cameras and microphones in all of our homes; are you really saying that would be desireable?

[qoute]What are the benefits of zoning?[/quote]

Exclusively? The ability of politicians and those politically connected with them to control the lives of others.

What are the costs of zoning?

Our dearest property rights, the basis of our freedom. Not to mention the other costs we've mentioned: increased taxes, more expensive property, etc.

What are the benefits of alternative methods of controlled development?

They are voluntary and controlled by free market forces, so they will be more representative of what people want at what price they're willing to pay for it. And nothing gets forced on anyone.

What are the costs of alternative methods of controlled development?

Whatever people are willing to pay for it voluntarily.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
That was in response to your statement, "Ask any business person if they would rather know how the market for their product will evolve over the next five years or not. Will anyone say no?" That 84% clearly did, since only 16% agreed with that premise: that it's better to have zoning and know. That's what the "positive rate of return" means.I completely disagree with your interpretation of the poll. As I stated before, it was a different question, and further, I don't think you can ignore those who said fair.
No; it's because there are some things more important than money.Then you are not the typical entrepeneur. I know that you have particular circumstances that make being your boss and setting your own hours quite attractive. But if you could really make more money investing your money in a passive secure investment, wouldn't you do so? Then you could spend all of your time with your kids.
Go into business for yourself and then go apply for a loan. See if any bank will touch you until you've been in business for two years.Banks give start up loans to businesses on a regular basis. I can't help it if you didn't qualify for one. It doesn't make a difference to my point in any event - if you can make more money in a secure passive investment, what are you doing starting a business? Why not make that money and do something else with your time - including working part time?
There would be if you were to build an identical home from scratch. That definitely figures into the price.I doubt it. The price for a resale home is set by supply and demand. The most important aspect of which is location. Which is why a 2 bedroom house can cost vastly different sums in different areas, even if both would cost the same to build.
Homes that are already built have a distinct advantage over new homes for precisely that reason: you don't have to worry about going and having it built yourself. But, of course, there's a limited number of existing homes on the market. So the laws of supply and demand are going to cause those prices to become more in line with the price of a new home. If it's too out of balance the one way, there'll be too much demand for existing homes and not enough demand for new homes. The market will balance itself out.The market does balance itself out, but as stated before the demand for existing homes is what drives the new home market. Developers don't build homes unless they can get a good return, and they look at the market as a whole to determine what that return can be.
I assumed we were invoking ceteris paribus. If we aren't, then the discussion is meaningless.Well, I agree that if you want to divorce location from housing pricing the discussion is meaningless. The fact is that replacement building cost is a minor factor at best in the resale housing market. Your comments seem to suggest that this pricing drives the market. It does not. The people who care about replacement cost are your insurance company.
But there are still differences in cases that involve civil or common law penalties and those which provide equitable penalties. If you want to compel performance, as you would with deed restrictions, equity law is what you need.

But the only consequences are financial. You cannot compel me to comply; you can only make me cough up the money for damages. In order to compel performance, you need a judgement in equity.Which will be backed up with what? Ultimately, gov't agents with guns, right?

Look, you are the one who made the blanket statement that courts are courts of equity in contract disputes. That is just wrong. Yes, they invoke equitable jurisdiction for certain remedies. That simply doesn't mean that they will ignore legal remedies.
I didn't say that. We were talking about deed restrictions here, not zoning. The court of equity is how you enforce deed restrictions since you need to compel performance.You said "And why isn't zoning enforceable in courts of equity?" This statement/question is meaningless. The courts can and will enforce zoning laws. It doesn't matter if the court is invoking equitable jurisdiction or not.
Then he shouldn't have signed the contract. If he changes his mind, he needs to go and renegotiate the contract. You're trying to twist it into an abridgement of freedom when it simply isn't. That would only be the case if the seller entered the contract under duress, but that would nullify the agreement.I am not twisting anything. I am just pointing out that your assertions of freedom of contract don't mean much when you cannot bargain as to the actual terms of the contract. Which is true with deed restrictions.
It directly speaks against your claim that "one person could hold up changes that would benefit the entire neighbourhood." That just isn't the case.It certainly does not. Deed restrictions are completely different from freeloaders on airwaves. Yeah. It's only called "An Introduction to Designing Zoning & Building Standards For Local Officials" because they're part of the conspiracy... Someone recommending a zoning restriction is simply not the same as that zoning retriction being put into place.
So what's your excuse for this one?

http://www.marlboro-twp.com/default.asp?pull=/FAQ-zoning.aspThank you for an actual example.
No, it isn't, because in that case goup B agreed to the restrictions of their own free will. Why do you keep ignoring this point? I am not ignoring it - I am disagreeing with it. I am saying that when you buy a property with deed restrictions, you have NO CHOICE but to accept those restrictions if you want that particular piece of property. Don't forget that the whole reason courts will enforce specific performance with respect to land is that each piece of land is considered unique. I don't think that there is a fundamental difference between buying a piece of land that has deed restrictions that you cannot bargain away or change and buying a piece of land subject to zoning controls that you also cannot bargain away or change.

You are implying a level of freedom with deed restrictions that for all practical purposes simply doesn't exist.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Then you are not the typical entrepeneur.

I beg to differ. If entrepeneurs were only concerned with money, then why wouldn't they put it in more secure forms of investment that have a greater rate of return?

Banks give start up loans to businesses on a regular basis.

That's just false. Startup loans are very rare and difficult to get, and generally have higher interest rates. Most startup money comes from investors who are speculating that this particular business has a better chance at succeeding than most others.

I doubt it. The price for a resale home is set by supply and demand. The most important aspect of which is location. Which is why a 2 bedroom house can cost vastly different sums in different areas, even if both would cost the same to build.

You keep bringing up location as if it means anything. Ceteris paribus. If we consider all other things to be identical, the price of new construction most definitely plays into it. If it's cheaper to build a new house, more people are going to do that and it'll drive up the price of new houses and down the price of existing homes, and vice-versa if building is more expensive.

Well, I agree that if you want to divorce location from housing pricing the discussion is meaningless. The fact is that replacement building cost is a minor factor at best in the resale housing market. Your comments seem to suggest that this pricing drives the market. It does not. The people who care about replacement cost are your insurance company.

This is completely ignorant. See my point above.

Which will be backed up with what? Ultimately, gov't agents with guns, right?

You're not listening, and I've explained the difference several times. Go back and reread my posts; I've been repeating myself. You always do this whenever you're trying to keep an invalid point going. You also know perfectly well that Libertarian believe that some government force is justified, and that enforcing contracts is one of these. Read what I wrote and stop with the non-sequiturs.

The courts can and will enforce zoning laws.

It generally isn't the courts that do this; it's the county commissioners, city council, or a special zoning board that do this. That's not a court.

I am not twisting anything. I am just pointing out that your assertions of freedom of contract don't mean much when you cannot bargain as to the actual terms of the contract. Which is true with deed restrictions.

You can bargain just as much as you can with any other contract. Let's say I want to buy a company, and that company has certain contracts with its clients. By taking them on, I'm bound by the terms of those contracts. Same thing.

It certainly does not. Deed restrictions are completely different from freeloaders on airwaves.

Whatever. Assert the problem away. That always works.

Thank you for an actual example.

And?

I am not ignoring it - I am disagreeing with it.

Well, then you might as well disagree that the sky is blue. The fact is, they agreed to it voluntarily.

I am saying that when you buy a property with deed restrictions, you have NO CHOICE but to accept those restrictions if you want that particular piece of property.

Again, I have rebutted this point several times. Repeating it does nothing for you.

I don't think that there is a fundamental difference between buying a piece of land that has deed restrictions that you cannot bargain away or change and buying a piece of land subject to zoning controls that you also cannot bargain away or change.

But zoning can change without my sayso. Deed restrictions can't. Why you so stubbornly fail to see this is beyond me.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
I beg to differ. If entrepeneurs were only concerned with money, then why wouldn't they put it in more secure forms of investment that have a greater rate of return? Because generally they don't exist. What are these magical passive investments of which you speak? Surely, you must agree that in order for any real value to be created someone must actually DO something. You either provide a service or sell a product, generally. When you are "investing", at some point down the road that money needs to be used to do one of those things. Quick example: someone borrows your $10,000 and promises to pay 5% interest on it. He uses that $10,000 to buy inventory, that he sells for a profit of $3000. He pays you $10,500, and keeps the $2,500.

From a global point of view, money that you can invest passively must be put to a more productive use than the cost of borrowing it or it doesn't make sense to take that capital in. This is basic stuff - I don't know why you don't get it.
That's just false. Startup loans are very rare and difficult to get, and generally have higher interest rates. Most startup money comes from investors who are speculating that this particular business has a better chance at succeeding than most others.Maybe for you, but not in general. In fact, here in Canada, there are a number of Gov't programs aimed at helping to provide start up capital for businesses.
You keep bringing up location as if it means anything. Ceteris paribus. If we consider all other things to be identical, the price of new construction most definitely plays into it. If it's cheaper to build a new house, more people are going to do that and it'll drive up the price of new houses and down the price of existing homes, and vice-versa if building is more expensive.I really dislike the way you use ceteris paribus to assume away any vestige of the real world. But I disagree with you anyway. I'll try to illustrate why by an example in which all other things are equal.

Let's say that we have 2 lots side by side in the same established neighbourhood. One has a house on it and the other is vacant. My contention is that the price of the vacant lot is definitely going to be swayed by construction costs, but not so much the existing house. The price of the existing house will be determined by the local market for houses in that area. The price of the lot will be determined by that as well, minus the costs of construction.

Let's say that the house costs $150,000 to build. That is constant across the city. If the two lots are in a great neighbourhood, you may get $400,000 for the existing house. In a bad neighbourhood, $200,000. Therefore, I say, you get either $250,000 for the lot in the great neighbourhood or $50,000 for the lot in the bad neighbourhood. In each case, it is the local market for established homes that drives the price of the land (and therefore overall cost) of the undeveloped lot. It is not the price of construction that is driving the price of the existing homes. Land is the key - not the cost of construction.
You're not listening, and I've explained the difference several times. Go back and reread my posts; I've been repeating myself. You always do this whenever you're trying to keep an invalid point going. You also know perfectly well that Libertarian believe that some government force is justified, and that enforcing contracts is one of these. Read what I wrote and stop with the non-sequiturs.I am listening, and I admit that this was a bit of a dig. But as you know, I am disputing the foundation of your argument regarding the voluntary nature of deed restrictions.It generally isn't the courts that do this; it's the county commissioners, city council, or a special zoning board that do this. That's not a court.In order to impose any sort of punishment, they need a court process.
You can bargain just as much as you can with any other contract. Let's say I want to buy a company, and that company has certain contracts with its clients. By taking them on, I'm bound by the terms of those contracts. Same thing.As much as with any other contract? Not so. Not even in your example. There are many different creative ways to buy a business, and I certainly could try and negotiate to buy a business with only specific contracts. For example, if the business I am buying is located in what I consider to be a bad loaction, I can buy the assets of the business excluding the lease on their current space. Or, I can buy only certain contracts with certain clients. There are things that I can do. Not so with deed restrictions - you can either take them or leave them.
Whatever. Assert the problem away. That always works.Do you really think that airwaves and deed restrictions are the same? Especially on the point that you brought it up on (whether one person can hold up benefits)? You contradict yourself later on....
And?I acknowledge that in some areas zoning can be as restrictive as deed restrictions.
Well, then you might as well disagree that the sky is blue. The fact is, they agreed to it voluntarily.Not exactly. They were presented with a "take it or leave it" and decided to take it. Pretty much the same as zoning - which is also take it or leave it. In other words, when buying the zoned property they knew they would have to comply with the zoning. therefore, they agreed to it - just as much as they "agree" to any deed restrictions.
Again, I have rebutted this point several times. Repeating it does nothing for you.No you haven't. They are take it or leave it propositions. You don't bargain for them. They are there. You buy it or don't. That is your only choice.But zoning can change without my sayso. Deed restrictions can't. Why you so stubbornly fail to see this is beyond me. Well, because it is contradictory. Either: deed restrictions can't change without your sayso - which means that one home in one hundred of a community who is in favour of maintaining a restriction can hold up a positive development for the whole community; or, if the matter is put to a vote and enough want it, the restriction CAN change without your sayso. Which is it?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Because generally they don't exist. What are these magical passive investments of which you speak?

Oh, come on—even a basic money market account is more secure with a better rate of return.

Especially restaurants. Restaurants are the riskiest business you can enter into. According to the National Restaurant Association, half of all restaurants fail in the first year; only 40% make it three years. Yet, they represent a huge amount of our economy, more than seven out of ten are single-unit, independent operations, and is the number one employer in the country (outside of government). Why would so many people start restaurants when it's so risky? Again, we're left with there being things more important than money.

Surely, you must agree that in order for any real value to be created someone must actually DO something. You either provide a service or sell a product, generally. When you are "investing", at some point down the road that money needs to be used to do one of those things. Quick example: someone borrows your $10,000 and promises to pay 5% interest on it. He uses that $10,000 to buy inventory, that he sells for a profit of $3000. He pays you $10,500, and keeps the $2,500.

That's a complete non-sequitur.

I really dislike the way you use ceteris paribus to assume away any vestige of the real world.

:rolleyes:

You use ceteris paribus to look at the effect of one aspect on the economy. In this case, it's zoning. So yes, we ignore location and assume that's equal. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about.

Let's say that we have 2 lots side by side in the same established neighbourhood. One has a house on it and the other is vacant. My contention is that the price of the vacant lot is definitely going to be swayed by construction costs, but not so much the existing house. The price of the existing house will be determined by the local market for houses in that area. The price of the lot will be determined by that as well, minus the costs of construction.

Then you're not thinking. If it's appreciably cheaper to build on the vacant lot, then that will have a disproportionately higher demand. As the supply is fixed, that would mean the plot is undervalued. And so the price will rise to equilibrium since whomever is selling the plot wants to get as much as he can out of it. On the other hand, if the vacant plot is selling for too much, so that it (plus the price of construction) is appreciably greater than the existing house, then the plot will be overvalued and there won't be the demand for it. So the owner will have to drop the price in order to find a buyer for it.

I am listening, and I admit that this was a bit of a dig. But as you know, I am disputing the foundation of your argument regarding the voluntary nature of deed restrictions.

Then dispute it by responding to my rebuttal, not by using digs and restating your assertion all over again.

As much as with any other contract? Not so. Not even in your example. There are many different creative ways to buy a business, and I certainly could try and negotiate to buy a business with only specific contracts.

Well, you can do the same with deed restrictions, so you just shot your own point out of the water.

Do you really think that airwaves and deed restrictions are the same?

Insofar as to the effect he was talking about, yes, it's exactly the same point.

Not exactly. They were presented with a "take it or leave it" and decided to take it.

Yes—they decided to take it. You have no such decision with zoning.

Pretty much the same as zoning

Oh? When did I agree not to have a gutter on the side of my house?

[qotue]which is also take it or leave it.[/quote]

But again, you're ignoring the fact that you have virtually no say at all in whatever changes the government decides it wants to make to the ordinance. They don't need your permission. With deed restrictions, they do.

No you haven't. They are take it or leave it propositions. You don't bargain for them. They are there. You buy it or don't. That is your only choice.

Again, you keep restating your assertion with no acknowledgement of my rebuttal. But what you're saying just isn't true, as I have pointed out and as you have ignored.

Read what I say. Stop making stuff up, and stop ignoring my points.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
Oh, come on—even a basic money market account is more secure with a better rate of return.I don't think I can help you any more than I already have. If you want to ignore basic business and economics, go right ahead. A money market account may be more secure, but it's rate of return is low. The potential rate of return for a business is much higher.
Especially restaurants. Restaurants are the riskiest business you can enter into. According to the National Restaurant Association, half of all restaurants fail in the first year; only 40% make it three years. Yet, they represent a huge amount of our economy, more than seven out of ten are single-unit, independent operations, and is the number one employer in the country (outside of government). Why would so many people start restaurants when it's so risky? Again, we're left with there being things more important than money.You keep mixing up what risk means. Yes, restaurants fail. But the ones that succeed make more money than your simple money market account. That is what entrepeneurs do - they take the risk that the restaurant might fail, but it is balanced by the fact that if successful they will receive a much higher rate of return.
That's a complete non-sequitur.It is the way the world works. It is why business gets a better return than passive capital. Deny it if you want; I guess you will never be a good businessman.

And I find it hilarious that you can keep going on about the airwaves example and call this a non-sequitur.
Then you're not thinking. If it's appreciably cheaper to build on the vacant lot, then that will have a disproportionately higher demand. As the supply is fixed, that would mean the plot is undervalued. And so the price will rise to equilibrium since whomever is selling the plot wants to get as much as he can out of it. On the other hand, if the vacant plot is selling for too much, so that it (plus the price of construction) is appreciably greater than the existing house, then the plot will be overvalued and there won't be the demand for it. So the owner will have to drop the price in order to find a buyer for it.You are just proving my point. You are just pointing out that the value of the already built homes drives the price of the lot. The lot price fluctuates as a result of the resale homes. The construction costs figure into what pricce you can get for the lot - but not the price of the resale home.
Well, you can do the same with deed restrictions, so you just shot your own point out of the water.Really? I can bargain with the seller of the property as to what restrictions I keep and what restrictions I leave out? That is not what you said before, and goes against the rest of your point.
Insofar as to the effect he was talking about, yes, it's exactly the same point.Only if by "exactly the same point" you mean "completely different".
Yes—they decided to take it. You have no such decision with zoning.You decide to take the property subject to the zoning. Exactly the same.
Oh? When did I agree not to have a gutter on the side of my house?If you don't like the zoning, you can move.
But again, you're ignoring the fact that you have virtually no say at all in whatever changes the government decides it wants to make to the ordinance. They don't need your permission. With deed restrictions, they do.
Of course you have say - through public meetings, voting, etc.
Again, you keep restating your assertion with no acknowledgement of my rebuttal. But what you're saying just isn't true, as I have pointed out and as you have ignored.Once again, you snip out my points that you can't answer. Either you can hold up the changes for the whole neighbourhood (which goes against your "airwave" point) or, the changes can be made without your consent (as part of some sort of vote). Which is it? Either way, your property rights are subject to the whims of others whom you cannot control. Which is exactly the complaint you have with zoning.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
I don't think I can help you any more than I already have. If you want to ignore basic business and economics, go right ahead. A money market account may be more secure, but it's rate of return is low. The potential rate of return for a business is much higher.

There's a difference between "potential" and "likely."

You keep mixing up what risk means. Yes, restaurants fail. But the ones that succeed make more money than your simple money market account.

But by only counting the ones that succeed, you're effectively cherry-picking your data. That was my problem from the start.

You are just proving my point. You are just pointing out that the value of the already built homes drives the price of the lot. The lot price fluctuates as a result of the resale homes. The construction costs figure into what pricce you can get for the lot - but not the price of the resale home.

In order to make that sentence, you had to acknowledge half my argument and ignore the other half. You want to eat your cake and have it, too.

Really? I can bargain with the seller of the property as to what restrictions I keep and what restrictions I leave out? That is not what you said before, and goes against the rest of your point.

And now you're just plain lying. That absolutely does not go against what I have said before, as I specifically said it depended on the terms of the seller's contract. You are the one trying to ignore that and saying that there's nothing at all that can be done.

You decide to take the property subject to the zoning. Exactly the same.

I never decided that.

Of course you have say - through public meetings, voting, etc.

Yeah, right. I turn again to the examples in my essay. They just don't listen to the "little people," even when they speak en masse by passing four referenda. They listen to the elite and the politically-connected.

Once again, you snip out my points that you can't answer. Either you can hold up the changes for the whole neighbourhood (which goes against your "airwave" point) or, the changes can be made without your consent (as part of some sort of vote). Which is it?

False dichotomy. The rest of the neighborhood can still make the changes without me; I'm only subject to what changes my contract with them demands I accept...conditions which I accepted when I signed the contract.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Thanz

Of course you have say - through public meetings, voting, etc.


This is obvious to most people, but you forget shanek is a member of a party that regularly gets 0% of the vote at the polls. So you see, shanek can't even concieve of a world where people can actually win elections and get laws changed.

[Flex]

Well,

I’m back. I’m somewhat disappointed in you ShaneK. I was hoping you would actually think about my questions before flippantly answering them. Instead you shot off a response in 37 minutes. That doesn’t leave much time for reflection and your answers show it.


Flex: What are the benefits of zoning?

ShaneK: Exclusively? The ability of politicians and those politically connected with them to control the lives of others.

Flex: What are the costs of zoning?

ShaneK: Our dearest property rights, the basis of our freedom. Not to mention the other costs we've mentioned: increased taxes, more expensive property, etc.

Flex: What are the benefits of alternative methods of controlled development?

ShaneK: They are voluntary and controlled by free market forces, so they will be more representative of what people want at what price they're willing to pay for it. And nothing gets forced on anyone.

Flex: What are the costs of alternative methods of controlled development?

ShaneK: Whatever people are willing to pay for it voluntarily.



Maybe I can answer them in a fashion we can agree on. Or maybe I can’t.

Zoning is an outgrowth of the desire that people have to control their surroundings, even those surroundings they do not personally own. That’s it. We have to agree to this before any of the rest makes any sense. I’m assuming that you agree with that statement, because if you start arguing that people don’t have that desire I’m just going to write you off as a nut case.

This desire manifests itself in many ways. We decorate our offices, we help build parks, we petition the local government for a new streetlight, we graffiti buildings, we mug people, and we steal things. These are all manifestations of people controlling other people’s property. Some of these examples are good occurrences, some of these examples are not so good occurrences, but they occur nonetheless.

The restrictions put on someone’s use of their land fall in this category. Obvious reasons to restrict a person from completely free use of their land fall into the health and safety category. Building a fireworks factory right next door to a refinery is unsafe and dumb. A reasonable person would think it is a pretty good idea to restrict the use of land for these reasons. Less obvious restrictions are things like requiring regular lawn mowing and presenting an attractive appearance. But people have the desire to impose those restrictions on other people as well.

There are ways to accommodate people’s wishes. One method, which we are currently discussing, is through municipal zoning ordinances. Another method, which has been touched on but not explored thoroughly, is through deed restrictions. I don’t think any other method has been touched on here at all.

Finally, it is possible to argue that no restrictions should exist because people should not be allowed to express their desire for controlling surrounding they don’t own. This perspective says that all land use restrictions are inappropriate and should be abolished.

Now for a little history lesson. I was wrong when I suggested that zoning ordinances began around 1900. I find that the first zoning ordinance was in 1916 in New York City. This ordinance was the brainchild of a lawyer who was concerned about the possible health and safety effects of skyscrapers cutting out all the light and air in the downtown area. So the first zoning ordinance was established requiring set-backs to all buildings above a certain height. The reason the New York skyline has such a distinctive profile of buildings with fat bases and tapering tops is directly because of the first zoning ordinance.

In the 1920’s zoning laws were springing up all over the place in order to control development and maintain the ‘character’ of local municipalities. The case I cited earlier
VILLAGE OF EUCLID ET AL. v. AMBLER REALTY COMPANY was the first case questioning the constitutionality of zoning laws as a general principle. The decision laid down by the United States Supreme Court was that zoning itself was not in violation of the U.S. Constitution, but that individual zoning ordinances laws may need review. This decision has been upheld in numerous subsequent rulings both at Federal District Courts and State Supreme Court levels.

One of the prime reasons zoning law was accepted when the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (SZEA) was put in place by the Federal Government in 1924 by the Secretary of Commerce, and later President, Herbert Hoover was that it provided for a board of appeals.

In North Carolina your local planning agency is authorized under state law sections 153A-321, 160A-361, and others, so your local zoning board has complete legal justification to enact zoning regulations. Other laws also require an appropriate appeals process. Which I’m sure you followed in the case your gutter.

For anyone interested in their local legislation covering zoning, here is a good place to start:
http://www.planning.org/growingsmart/summaries.htm

Deed restrictions pre-date zoning ordinances by quite a bit. I would have preferred you to provide more information about the little devils, after all you are the one bringing them up all the time, but I had some time for some research on them. As you say, they are covered under contract law. Some things you didn’t mention, maybe because these details are not important to you, are the following:

As in any contract, a deed restriction cannot violate any criminal laws. So the example listed earlier where a fellow pointed out that his deed at one time prevented anyone selling his house to a colored person is an invalid contract. I could not determine if this would make the entire contract invalid, or just the deed restriction invalid. I suspect the latter because courts of law are usually pretty reasonable places.

If an individual places a deed restriction on a piece of property, the individual has the obligation to ensure that the deed restriction is enforced. So, the example I gave earlier where my parents placed a deed restriction on some land they sold means that the seller has to monitor the property to ensure the deed restriction is enforced.

Deed restrictions which are not enforced are invalidated. This information came from a pamphlet published for residents of the town of Pasadena, Texas, (near Houston) where deed restrictions enacted by a homeowner’s association were discussed. So, if you don’t enforce a deed restriction the restriction goes away.

Deed restrictions in areas without zoning laws are usually put in place by the developer and filed with the local municipality. It is also possible for a homeowners association to impose deed restrictions on a community, even without 100% concurrence by the homeowners affected. Texas Property Code Section 201.006 states that in order to create, renew, or extend restrictions a majority of the total number of lots in the subdivision is all that is required to impose deed restrictions on all lots in that subdivision.

Deed restrictions are not required to be disclosed when selling the property. I was unable to determine if all deed restrictions are on every copy of the deed, but I doubt it. Otherwise how could a homeowners association create, extent, or renew deed restrictions without an inordinate amount of paperwork.

Finally, according to an opinion handed down by the Attorney General of Texas in 2002, not only can a homeowners association sue a non-compliant resident, the ultimate remedy of continued non-compliance by the resident can legally be a court ordered foreclosure on the house and title for the house being given to the homeowners association. Ouch!

Let’s look at those questions again:

Flex: What are the benefits of zoning?

ShaneK: Exclusively? The ability of politicians and those politically connected with them to control the lives of others.

The benefit of zoning is that it is one method to fulfil a desire people have to modify their surrounds, even those things which they do not directly own.

Another method, called deed restrictions and administered by a homeowners association, can provide the same benefit, with essentially the same restrictions.

To compare the two options:

_______________________________Zoning ordinances_________Deed Restrictions
Limits land usage---------------------------------Yes--------------------------------Yes
Legally enforceable-------------------------------Yes--------------------------------Yes
Always chosen by landowner--------------------No---------------------------------No
Always apparent to landowner-------------------No---------------------------------No
Enforced by Local Government-----------------Yes---------------------------------No
Enforced by Non-elected group------------------No---------------------------------Yes
Expire if not enforced-----------------------------No---------------------------------Yes
Right of Appeal----------------------------------Limited----------------------------Limited
Process of Appeal-----------------------------Appeals Board--------------------Court System
Majority Rules------------------------------------Yes--------------------------------Typically
Illegal if violates other laws---------------------Yes----------------------------------Yes

The biggest difference I see between the two types of regulation is that one is performed by elected officials who can be removed from their position of authority.

Flex: What are the costs of zoning?

ShaneK: Our dearest property rights, the basis of our freedom. Not to mention the other costs we've mentioned: increased taxes, more expensive property, etc.

Ah, so you do subscribe to the idea that property rights outweigh all other considerations. In that case, don’t even bother to bring deed restrictions into the picture. Just explain what you mean. Property is sacrosanct.

As for the increased property value… I’m sorry, the more expensive property, you attempted to show this above with one study which suggested that zoning ordinances were responsible for increased housing costs by making the supply of housing more expensive. I pointed out many, but not all, of the assumptions in the study and came to a different conclusion. Other people in this thread have applauded the idea that their houses are worth more because of zoning. I agree that houses may well be worth more because of zoning laws, but not because of any supply side constraints, instead people think that houses in areas with zoning laws are worth more so they pay more. I think that zoning, by itself, has not been shown to increase the price of a house, but that zoning is one of the demand side factors which affects the price of a house.

Since most taxes are based on property assessment, which are mainly based on the sale price of a home, sure, taxes undoubtedly go up, but that is not a direct effect of zoning, but a secondary effect relating to consumer demand for zoning.

Flex: What are the benefits of alternative methods of controlled development?

ShaneK: They are voluntary and controlled by free market forces, so they will be more representative of what people want at what price they're willing to pay for it. And nothing gets forced on anyone.

I hope that what I’ve shown you above from the Texas Property code shows how little deed restrictions actually are ‘voluntary’, ‘controlled by free market forces’, or ‘representative’. You have better have another method of controlled development up your sleeve because deed restrictions are no longer an alternative which meets your requirements.

Flex: What are the costs of alternative methods of controlled development?

ShaneK: Whatever people are willing to pay for it voluntarily.

Funny. I thought people are willing to pay for zoning ordinances voluntarily? Maybe there are hundreds of thousands of municipalities around the country wondering why no one has bought any property since they instituted zoning ordinances?

If you have a good answer to this question lets hear it. Being flippant doesn’t win you any points.

My answer is that zoning is no more expensive than other methods of controlling development. Until I see some figures showing otherwise I’m not going to be persuaded otherwise. I’m not making a claim here, I’m waiting for proof of a claim that alternative methods of controlled development are cheaper than zoning.

On to other topics:

Concerning the paper “The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability�, you make a comment: In any case, it's obvious that zoning does have a significant effect on the supply side, pushing it to the left and thus increasing the equilibrium price.

This is exactly what the paper is attempting to prove. I don’t think that it is obvious that zoning has a significant effect on the supply side. Just stating that you think it does is not evidence that it does. In my analysis of the paper, I don’t think that the authors could positively state that either. Neither could the authors, as I pointed out.

Next point, you quoted from the paper: Our third empirical approach relies on the existence of zoning. If we have measures of the difficulty of obtaining building permits in a particular area, then we should expect them to drive up housing costs (holding B constant). This is just documenting that dP/dT>0. Obviously, this approach is likely to be compromised if high amenity areas impose more stringent zoning. Nonetheless, a connection between the strength of zoning rules and housing prices seems like a final test for the zoning view. As an added test, 14 across communities, if we have measures of zoning controls, we would expect the estimated value of T/L to be higher.

All three tests, including this one, used the numbers originally generated for columns 3 and 4 in table 4 of their report. I showed why those numbers didn’t correlate because one side contains only supply side factors and the other side contains both supply and demand side factors. They made an unproven assumption that all demand factors were eliminated with their second methodology.

If you use data which is suspect you get suspect results. Garbage in, Garbage out.

Originally by Flex

While you didn’t show how you arrived at this number, I assume you simply took the reported P’(L) value $1.415 and multiplied by 10890, the number of feet in an acre.

Originally by ShaneK
Well, of course you invoke ceteris paribus in all such situations. With there being a multitude of different things that can affect the price of land, this seems very reasonable to me.

And by the way, I did use that calculation, but I also double-checked it by using the data from their tables to average the figure and got the same number. I did it about three or four different ways, and got the same answer each time. So it seems right.

Well, I gave you a chance to correct your mistake, but now I’m going to advertise it. I don’t think you know what that value means. The authors found the slope of the line, not the position of the line on the graph, only the slope. Those numbers in column 2 and 4 of table 4 are the first derivative of the overall equation. All this can tell you is how things are changing relative to other known values. That’s why those numbers are so low, they are only indicating the change in the housing market per unit of land in each housing area. Didn’t you wonder why Dallas and Seattle had negative numbers? Just using your calculation in Seattle would suggest that they are giving you money to take the land. According to the way you calculated the numbers, Seatle is paying people $7405.20 to take each quarter-acre of land. Man, I want to move there.

These really are fairly useful numbers. For example, Thanz ask earlier how much a house in Houston would cost compared to a house someplace else, say Detroit. Well, the mean house price in Houston is $108,463 according to column 5 of table 4. The change in price is $1.62 per square foot after a log/log correction, we don’t have all the information necessary, that is, the mean lot size, but let’s assume that it’s a quarter-acre lot. According to the data in their charts, a house on a quarter-acre (roughly 10,000 sq. ft.) costs $108,463. The same house on a half-acre then costs, $108,463+$1.62*10,000 or about $124,653. This is just the increase of the value of the raw land. The calculations which include demand for the house suggest the house would cost a lot more. Column 4 of table 4 includes all the demand and supply factors aside from the construction costs of the house. The same house in Houston including all the demand factors actually changes at a rate of $4.37 a square foot. So, recalculating the equation suggests that the same house which cost $108,463 on a quarter acre of land would cost $108,463+$4.37*10,000 or about $152,163.

The same calculations in my home city, Detroit, has gives the following results:

Mean home price: $138,217
Assumption: Mean home is on a quarter-acre lot.
Slope of land value: $0.45
Slope of all values aside from replacement costs: $5.10
Double the land, price from price of only the land increase is: $142,717
Double the land, price from all factors except replacement cost: $189,217

The authors claim that the entire difference is because of zoning laws, but the methodology they use for the second number, ((sale price of home) – (construction costs))/(area of lot) does not eliminate demand affects.

BTW, the table suggests that Houston does not have lower home prices than Detroit solely because of zoning laws. I will grant that the average home price in Houston is the third lowest on the chart, but both Tampa and Pittsburgh have lower average home prices. Florida requires all municipalities to have a zoning ordinance, it’s a state law. Pennsylvania allows municipalities to choose, but Pittsburgh is a fairly tightly zoned area. You haven’t claimed that Houston house prices are cheaper because of zoning, but it’s not true regardless.

On to other things

Originally post by ShaneK
It's a lot easier to just request rezoning for the entire 3 acres since any buildings and uses that exist on the land at the time are always grandfathered in; so it just doesn't make sense to parcel out the land again and have it rezoned, particularly since you don't know for sure if they'll approve the rezoning request.

It might make sense if it shows to the zoning board that you really aren’t planning on developing the entire parcel.

Originally posted by ShaneK
But the basis which they denied the rezoning was the fear that he would sell alcohol. The zoning laws many not say the first word about it, but the Commissioners can still exercise their power based on whatever they want.

Unfortunately this is hearsay evidence. I’m not saying that it isn’t true, but if there was some proof that this was true, I suspect it would go a long way toward an overturn at the board of appeals. And there is nothing that restricts a neighborhood association from pulling the same raw work. The Board of Commissioners at least has to get re-elected at some point. Apparently the voters were upset enough to remove at least one of the Commissioners and not vote for two other former Commissioners. Has the fellow re-applied for his zoning permit yet?

Originally posted by ShaneK
The point is, what reactions do businesses have to zoning? If they don't feel it gives them a positive rate of return, that is a disincentive to move a business to the county.

All I’m saying is that you are jumping to conclusions. Let’s as a different question and assume the response was the same. Let’s ask, “Do you think there is a positive rate of return on the sidewalk in front of your business.� It’s something they face everyday, but it’s not something they may consider. I am surprised that 25% businesses actually answered that it gave them a negative rate of return.

The John Locke people never answered my question, and I don’t know much about them. There are hundreds of ways that survey could be skewed. Do you have any other details? Did they distribute John Locke promotional literature when they sent out the survey? Did they randomly choose the businesses, or where the businesses self-identified? Do you see what I’m getting at here? A single piece of information is not all that useful. The methodology of gathering any information is extremely important.


Originally by FlexIn 1961 Ellsbreg pointed out in the Quarterly Journal of Economics that people would rather bet on known than unknown probabilities. The particular test was drawing balls from an urn. A person had two choices, draw from an urn with 50 yellow and 50 white balls inside, or draw from an urn with 100 palls inside but in unknown proportions. People generally preferred to draw from the urn where the proportions were known over the unknown.

Originally by ShaneK
This might be cogent as to investors wanting to invest money in a business, but as I've already covered that's very different than why a person would start a business of his own. Investors are concerned with the bottom line: making their money back. The business owner most certainly has reasons other than money for doing so, otherwise he'd simply put his money into a more secure investment. His motivation may be to be his own boss, set his own hours, work from his own home, spend more time with his family, do what he really loves but has difficulty finding a job doing that particular thing, whatever. Most business owners could make a lot more money working for someone else; I know I could. But there are other motivations at stake here, so your analogy doesn't really apply to them.

Maybe you don’t understand. This is not an analogy, this is behavioral research. Well established, supported by dozens of empirical studies about general human tendencies. Duplicated hundreds of times. Duplicated so many times the researches can pretty accurately predict the point where the reward outweighs the uncertainty. Maybe you are suggesting that business owners are not human, but that’s the only way to ignore this data.

Risk is a wholly other subject, and one of the reasons people assume the responsibility for a business. The possible return on risk can be quite high for a businessman. As you point out, there are many reasons people go into business, return may not even be an issue for a particular businessman. However, businessmen don’t like uncertainty. Let’s put up a hypothetical. Lets say you, as a businessman, make an agreement with one of your suppliers to deliver a widget you need to assemble your final product. Option 1: The supplier tells you, “I am uncertain about when I will be delivering the widgets you want. It may be tomorrow, or it may be next week.� Option 2: The supplier tells you, “I am uncertain about when I will be delivering the widgets you want. It may be in two days or it may be in three days.� Which option would you prefer to hear? Option 2 has reduced uncertainty, but the risk level between options is identical.

Originally by ShaneK

I really don't see how anyone seeing the data can argue this point: without zoning, there would be more people creating small businesses of their own and more larger businesses moving into the county.

What data?

Other issues

Originally posted by ShaneK
Cities and counties in the US get their powers from the state. They have no Constitutional authority to get them from anywhere else. The Constitution, in every case, is supreme.

Yep, the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of this land. That does not mean laws are only created by the authority of the Federal Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution creating common law. Nothing. If common law is found to disagree with the Constitution, the common law is thrown away, that’s what it means to be the supreme law. The Constitution guarantees certain rights and privileges, but some of those rights were, and still are missing.

Do you realize that you have no right to privacy? Nope, there is noting in the Constitution of the United State guaranteeing you your privacy. It took a Supreme Court Case to declare that the framers of the Bill of Rights probably intended that the right to privacy exists, but they didn’t include it. So they ruled that the Privacy Act of 1974 was really Constitutionally protected.

Oh, you do have the right to prevent unwarrantable search and seizure, but you do not have the right, in a strict reading of the Bill of Rights, to complain about a policeman, or a neighborhood association member, from watching your house with a telescope. Or an insurance company getting your medical records from your doctor without notifying you. Privacy; not in the Bill of Rights.

Originally posted by ShaneK
With deed restrictions, all you're doing is holding someone to something they have personally, individually, and voluntarily agreed to. That's their responsibility, as it's a part of their right to contract. That is not the case with zoning, which uses force to restrict people who don't want it, never agreed to it, and are even personally against it.

Maybe you want to look at the Texas deed restriction laws again. A majority of people in an neighborhood can force a deed restriction on you. BTW, according to the Texas Law, it only takes three people in a neighborhood to form a neighborhood association. And once they file the association papers with their municipality, no other neighborhood associations can be formed in that neighborhood.

I’ve only looked at Texas because that seems to be where all your examples are coming from.

If you have others, point them out to me and give me time and I’ll look through other municipalities.

Originally posted by ShaneK
But again, when you're examining things economically, you use ceteris paribus to examine the effect. You assume that all other things are equal other than what you're changing. That's how it works.

Yep, you do that when looking at historical data to understand what happened. You also do that in order to study the rules of economics so you can see which each piece of the puzzle is before you put it all together. Tell an economist to make a prediction based on the assumption ceteris paribus, he’ll be happy to do it. Then tell him you are going to act on his prediction because you are going to assume the real world follows ceteris paribus in this instance. After he finishes laughing he may ask other questions to determine how sane you are.

Originally from Flex

After all the Houston article said that the communities which had zoning laws actually saw a decrease in the prices of homes. The demand for housing, including school districts, weather, traffic, noise, lot size, smells, etc., all seem to have a far greater impact on housing costs than zoning.

Originally posted by ShaneK from an article about zoning in Houston

In fact, between 1990 and 1993, average annual home sale prices actually fell in the two zoned cities while sprinting up in a number of Houston neighborhoods, restricted and unrestricted

ShaneK’s Comment
So the essay is hardly saying what you're painting it to say.

Let me be clear. My first sentence is a statement that the article about Houston indicated that some communities in Houston with zoning the prices of homes fell. I don’t see how anyone can get anything else from that sentence in the Houston article.

My second sentence, which I didn’t mention the Houston article, is my own opinion, not backed by any article, that all those other things appear to have a greater impact on the price of a home than zoning does.

Is that clear? I’m not, in any way, stating that the Houston article says what I’m saying. In fact, it’s entire point is that zoning is not necessary for the proper operation of a city.

My point, and what I’ve been saying from the beginning, is that there is no evidence that zoning adds significant costs to a community. I may even concede that there is a cost, but it is not a significant factor in the supply side of housing.

Further, zoning is allowed under the Federal Constitution, as decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Further zoning meets the needs of the inhabitants of a community.

Further, other methods of meeting those needs do exist, and do work. But they achieve the same results with less accountability.

Originally posted by ShaneK
The problem with that line of reasoning is that it ignores the decimation of property rights that zoning comprises. This is America. You don't get to take away people's rights because it's the best way to solve something. We could probably cut down on crime by having the police install video cameras and microphones in all of our homes; are you really saying that would be desireable?

You are in the minority in thinking that zoning is decimating property rights. I suspect that you do fall into the category of people who feel that any land-use restrictions are bad. Be glad that you don’t live in China, by law there, the Chinese Government owns all land. Of course they will lease it to you on 50 or 75 year leases, and they pay great compensation if they have to break the lease, like giving you a new house with the same amount of land. But, you can’t escape the fact that the Government owns all land.

As for the police installing video cameras and microphones in your home, there is nothing the in Federal Constitution preventing them from doing that. The protections we have against them doing so is in the power granted by the citizens to lesser bodies of Government who have enacted laws forbidding such practices.

Property is liberty. Property is theft. Property is impossible.

Property is a social agreement.

Cheers,

-Flex

[shanek]

Originally posted by Flex
Well,

I’m back. I’m somewhat disappointed in you ShaneK. I was hoping you would actually think about my questions before flippantly answering them. Instead you shot off a response in 37 minutes. That doesn’t leave much time for reflection and your answers show it.

Oh, come on. Don't flatter yourself that you're asking me questions no one else has before.

Zoning is an outgrowth of the desire that people have to control their surroundings, even those surroundings they do not personally own. That’s it. We have to agree to this before any of the rest makes any sense.

Makes sense to me. That's what government does, you know: exploit people's desires and make them believe it's the only thing that can fulfill them. Same with helping the poor or making sure you have enough money for retirement.

And as you say, sometimes it manifests itself in ways that violate the rights of others. That doesn't become any more right when you have the government do the violating for you.

The restrictions put on someone’s use of their land fall in this category. Obvious reasons to restrict a person from completely free use of their land fall into the health and safety category. Building a fireworks factory right next door to a refinery is unsafe and dumb. A reasonable person would think it is a pretty good idea to restrict the use of land for these reasons.

Of course, because it endangers the property of others.

Less obvious restrictions are things like requiring regular lawn mowing and presenting an attractive appearance. But people have the desire to impose those restrictions on other people as well.

Yes, but they don't have that right to infringe on their property rights. So if they really want this, they should see if they can get their neighbor to agree to certain deed restrictions. They'll probably have to give him something he wants in return. That's how the market works.

In North Carolina your local planning agency is authorized under state law sections 153A- 321, 160A-361, and others, so your local zoning board has complete legal justification to enact zoning regulations. Other laws also require an appropriate appeals process. Which I’m sure you followed in the case your gutter.

Yes, and it didn't work. Why? Because the planning board thought they were handing out too many variances and decided they needed to make an example of someone. They actually said that!

[qoute]If an individual places a deed restriction on a piece of property, the individual has the obligation to ensure that the deed restriction is enforced. So, the example I gave earlier where my parents placed a deed restriction on some land they sold means that the seller has to monitor the property to ensure the deed restriction is enforced.[/quote]

And again, a lot of deed restrictions set up a third party that does this.

Deed restrictions are not required to be disclosed when selling the property. I was unable to determine if all deed restrictions are on every copy of the deed, but I doubt it. Otherwise how could a homeowners association create, extent, or renew deed restrictions without an inordinate amount of paperwork.

When a HOA is established, the deed basically says that the person buying the property agrees to go with whatever the HOA says. It's kind of like on the contracts we give our clients, where it simply says they agree to the Terms and Conditions, which are subject to change without notice. We have the TaC posted on our website and it is the client's responsibility to read it and make sure he agrees with it.

To compare the two options:

_______________________________Zoning ordinances_________Deed Restrictions
Limits land usage---------------------------------Yes--------------------------------Yes
Legally enforceable-------------------------------Yes--------------------------------Yes
Always chosen by landowner--------------------No---------------------------------No

There should be a "Yes" to that third one under Deed Restrictions.

Always apparent to landowner-------------------No---------------------------------No
Enforced by Local Government-----------------Yes---------------------------------No
Enforced by Non-elected group------------------No---------------------------------Yes

That's a very dishonest way of putting it. First of all, many HOAs do choose their board members by elections. Second, an HOA isn't required for deed restrictions. Third, even if they aren't elected, they are voluntarily agreed to by every single person who signs the agreement.

The biggest difference I see between the two types of regulation is that one is performed by elected officials who can be removed from their position of authority.

No, the biggest one is that deed restrictions are voluntarily agreed to, which you marked as wrong. And I explained in the above paragraph why your "elected" thing is a red-herring. It's there to try and shoehorn some kind of legitimacy onto zoning that doesn't exist.

Ah, so you do subscribe to the idea that property rights outweigh all other considerations. In that case, don’t even bother to bring deed restrictions into the picture. Just explain what you mean. Property is sacrosanct.

Our rights are sacrosanct. Property is how we enforce that.

Other people in this thread have applauded the idea that their houses are worth more because of zoning.

Again, there's a difference between "worth more" and "more expensive." With zoning, the nominal value of the property is increased while nothing at all happens to the real value. I don't know how many times I can explain this, and I'm really tired of my points being ignored.

Since most taxes are based on property assessment, which are mainly based on the sale price of a home, sure, taxes undoubtedly go up, but that is not a direct effect of zoning, but a secondary effect relating to consumer demand for zoning.

Show that this consumer demand exists. If there's such a demand, then why is zoning, as I have shown, so consistently voted down by wide margins every time a place without zoning puts it to a vote by the people?

I hope that what I’ve shown you above from the Texas Property code shows how little deed restrictions actually are ‘voluntary’, ‘controlled by free market forces’, or ‘representative’.

If that is the case, then the problem is with the Texas Property code, not with deed restrictions per se.

Funny. I thought people are willing to pay for zoning ordinances voluntarily?

Support this assertion.

Maybe there are hundreds of thousands of municipalities around the country wondering why no one has bought any property since they instituted zoning ordinances?

Or maybe they're just able to get away with it because of other benefits the property in their location has. Your statement is not only small-minded and an excluded middle fallacy, it shows a profound ignorance of economics as well.

[qoute]If you have a good answer to this question lets hear it. Being flippant doesn’t win you any points.[/quote]

I have given good answers. They stand ignored.

My answer is that zoning is no more expensive than other methods of controlling development. Until I see some figures showing otherwise I’m not going to be persuaded otherwise.

I have shown you the figures.

I’m not making a claim here,

You have made several claims in this thread, and have not backed up any of them.

I’m waiting for proof of a claim that alternative methods of controlled development are cheaper than zoning.

Considering that I never made such a claim, you might have a long wait.

They made an unproven assumption that all demand factors were eliminated with their second methodology.

Support this. It seems to me they did a good job of making sure those factors didn't have much of an effect on their conclusion.

If you use data which is suspect you get suspect results. Garbage in, Garbage out.

Show that their data are suspect.

Didn’t you wonder why Dallas and Seattle had negative numbers?

You're looking at the wrong column. Neither Dallas nor Seattle nor any of the other cities had negative numbers for Imputed Land Cost from Means Data.

The authors claim that the entire difference is because of zoning laws, but the methodology they use for the second number, ((sale price of home) – (construction costs))/(area of lot) does not eliminate demand affects.

Sure, if you completely the places where they mention how they account for depreciation, overstimation, the urban model, and other factors. But the big thing you're ignoring is that the demand effects would also apply to the buildable lots as well in the proper proportion. Again, if a home in an area demands a certain price, then the system is going to balance out to where the price of a buildable lot will cause you to pay that much in toto after constructing the home on it. How these points have escaped you is beyond me.

BTW, the table suggests that Houston does not have lower home prices than Detroit solely because of zoning laws. I will grant that the average home price in Houston is the third lowest on the chart, but both Tampa and Pittsburgh have lower average home prices. Florida requires all municipalities to have a zoning ordinance, it’s a state law.

That's an invalid comparison, and one the study authors work very hard to avoid. They only compare the lot prices to buildable lots in the same city; they don't try to compare other cities in different areas with different economic situations. They only figure in to the aggregate data.

It might make sense if it shows to the zoning board that you really aren’t planning on developing the entire parcel.

Why? Isn't it bad enough that you're making me go to mommy government to beg and plead to be able to do something with my own property that the voters said they wanted people to be able to do not eight months before?

And there is nothing that restricts a neighborhood association from pulling the same raw work.

The neighborhood assocation is bound by the terms of the contract, not by a municipal referendum. Stop comparing apples and accordians.

The John Locke people never answered my question, and I don’t know much about them. There are hundreds of ways that survey could be skewed. Do you have any other details? Did they distribute John Locke promotional literature when they sent out the survey? Did they randomly choose the businesses, or where the businesses self-identified? Do you see what I’m getting at here? A single piece of information is not all that useful. The methodology of gathering any information is extremely important.

You said you found the report; the methodology etc. is all there.


Maybe you are suggesting that business owners are not human, but that’s the only way to ignore this data.

:rolleyes:

Or maybe it just means that the kind of people who run businesses don't conform to how people as a whole behave? Again, you resort to fallacious extremes. Let's look at a possible permutation of this:

You: How can we rely on scientists to give us accurate opinions on evolution? A recent poll said 60% of Americans believe in Creationism!
Me: But that's very different from how scientists in the field work.
You: So you're saying scientists aren't human!

Ridiculous. Your "behavioral research" would only be valid in this case if the only people they tested were business owners.

However, businessmen don’t like uncertainty.

They certainly try to minimize it, but the truth is, if what they were doing were certain then other people would have done it already. Businessmen innovate despite the uncertainty involved in doing so.

Let’s put up a hypothetical. Lets say you, as a businessman, make an agreement with one of your suppliers to deliver a widget you need to assemble your final product. Option 1: The supplier tells you, “I am uncertain about when I will be delivering the widgets you want. It may be tomorrow, or it may be next week.� Option 2: The supplier tells you, “I am uncertain about when I will be delivering the widgets you want. It may be in two days or it may be in three days.� Which option would you prefer to hear?

Depends. What are they charging? What do I need the widgets for? What is the quality of the first company's widgets compared to the second? There are a zillion questions I could ask, and the answer to any of them could swing me towards Option 1. Sure, ceteris paribus I'm going for Option 2, but the point I was trying to make is that there are other factors involved. And that's why you need to understand not only the usefulness but the limitations of ceteris paribus.

What data?

The data I've been presenting this entire thread!

Yep, the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of this land. That does not mean laws are only created by the authority of the Federal Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution creating common law. Nothing.

That's just completely wrong. Article III specifically sets up the Judicial Branch to handle all cases in law and equity—and law includes common law.

But our founders also set up the states to be the arbiters of common law; the Federal government doesn't have any authority over it. That's why it's not mentioned in Article I Section 8. The Federal government was supposed to be severely limited in what it can do.

And then, of course, there are the state Constitutions, which I was clearly including. The state Constitutions are supreme over all of the state's laws.

Do you realize that you have no right to privacy? Nope, there is noting in the Constitution of the United State guaranteeing you your privacy.

Your rights don't come from the Constitution. Read the Ninth Amendment.

Oh, you do have the right to prevent unwarrantable search and seizure, but you do not have the right, in a strict reading of the Bill of Rights, to complain about a policeman, or a neighborhood association member, from watching your house with a telescope. Or an insurance company getting your medical records from your doctor without notifying you.

Wrong; the First Amendment gives me the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Privacy; not in the Bill of Rights.

Red herring. Read the Ninth.

Maybe you want to look at the Texas deed restriction laws again.

How does the fact that one state managed to write a tyrannical law regarding deed restrictions help your point? You're extrapolating that to all deed restrictions, and that's invalid. As I said, the problem there is with the Texas deed restriction laws. If there were no such laws, and they were only enforced in courts of equity, there would be no such issue.

I’ve only looked at Texas because that seems to be where all your examples are coming from.

Wrong. Trimble County isn't in Texas. Most of my examples come from NC since that's where I live. Such as my business partner and his neighborhood's street lights.

Yep, you do that when looking at historical data to understand what happened. You also do that in order to study the rules of economics so you can see which each piece of the puzzle is before you put it all together. Tell an economist to make a prediction based on the assumption ceteris paribus, he’ll be happy to do it. Then tell him you are going to act on his prediction because you are going to assume the real world follows ceteris paribus in this instance. After he finishes laughing he may ask other questions to determine how sane you are.

I agree. Now, how does that refute anything I've said? As I recall, you're the one going on and on about certainty.

My point, and what I’ve been saying from the beginning, is that there is no evidence that zoning adds significant costs to a community. I may even concede that there is a cost, but it is not a significant factor in the supply side of housing.

Bully for you. But why can't other people have the freedom to decide for themselves how much cost is significant?

You are in the minority in thinking that zoning is decimating property rights.

Argumentum ad populum.

Be glad that you don’t live in China,

Tu Quoque. You're just racking up the fallacies tonight!

[Flex]

Qriginally posted by ShaneK
When a HOA is established, the deed basically says that the person buying the property agrees to go with whatever the HOA says. It's kind of like on the contracts we give our clients, where it simply says they agree to the Terms and Conditions, which are subject to change without notice. We have the TaC posted on our website and it is the client's responsibility to read it and make sure he agrees with it.

Funny, that pretty much what zoning ordinances do. The only real difference is that there is a “We� used in the above sentence rather than a ‘They�. Okay, forgive me, I’m pushing a button. Seriously though, If the regulations are the same, the means of entry is the same, the penalties are the same, and the only difference are the administrators, you are making a very fine disticntion.

Originally from Flex

_______________________________Zoning ordinances_________Deed Restrictions
Limits land usage---------------------------------Yes--------------------------------Yes
Legally enforceable-------------------------------Yes--------------------------------Yes
Always chosen by landowner--------------------No---------------------------------No


Response from ShaneK
There should be a "Yes" to that third one under Deed Restrictions.

Not in Houston. So it’s not an always. See my above evidence.


Originally from Flex
Always apparent to landowner-------------------No---------------------------------No
Enforced by Local Government-----------------Yes---------------------------------No
Enforced by Non-elected group------------------No---------------------------------Yes

Response from ShaneK

That's a very dishonest way of putting it. First of all, many HOAs do choose their board members by elections. Second, an HOA isn't required for deed restrictions. Third, even if they aren't elected, they are voluntarily agreed to by every single person who signs the agreement.

Dishonest? It’s just as honest as the election for Commissioners. Or should I say it’s just as dishonest. I’m certain that many HOAs do chose their board members by election, but they are not required to. As for deed restrictions, one of the main points of your argument is that deed restrictions which cover an entire subdivision are the way to duplicate zoning ordinances. How are they handled without an HOA? If they aren’t enforced they lapse. Are you expecting each person who moves out of the neighborhood to visit every three months to check to make sure their deed restrictions are not being violated?

[Originally by ShaneK[/I]
No, the biggest one is that deed restrictions are voluntarily agreed to, which you marked as wrong. And I explained in the above paragraph why your "elected" thing is a red-herring. It's there to try and shoehorn some kind of legitimacy onto zoning that doesn't exist.

InTexas, deed restrictions are not necessarily voluntarily agreed to. They may be, I don’t know. But I do know that they are not required to be.

HOAs, as far as I can determine are not required to elect their officers. The members of the zoning commission are required to be elected officials.



Originally by ShaneK
Again, there's a difference between "worth more" and "more expensive." With zoning, the nominal value of the property is increased while nothing at all happens to the real value. I don't know how many times I can explain this, and I'm really tired of my points being ignored.

Yes. I know you have been saying this. No one questions that you have been saying this. You, however have only presented one paper to justify this, and you miss-interpreted the paper. You have not ‘explained’ anything. Repetition is not evidence.

Originally posted by ShaneK
Show that this consumer demand exists. If there's such a demand, then why is zoning, as I have shown, so consistently voted down by wide margins every time a place without zoning puts it to a vote by the people?

I’m beginning to think you are deliberately misinterpreting what I have been saying. I never said that there was a demand for zoning. What I said was that zoning has not been shown to be a significant part of supply costs based on the paper “The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability� The reason I can claim that zoning is not a shown to be a significant part of supply costs is because the numbers they generated with their second methodology includes demand factors.

I don’t know that there is a demand for zoning or not. I do know that anecdotal evidence suggests that people sometimes deliberately choose a zoned area over a non-zoned area. That suggests to me that there may be a demand for zoning, but it is certainly not conclusive evidence.

As for why people vote zoning down for a community, hey I don’t know, ask them. You seem to be assuming that zoning is imposed on communities without a vote. When, in fact people vote for zoning ordinances all the time.

You have made a claim here that I would like you to substantiate. The claim is zoning is consistently voted down every time a place without zoning puts it to the vote of the people. Would you agree that if I find as many places which voted for zoning by a large margin that this canard is put to rest? Or is there some other criteria you would like to use to validate that claim. I don’t trust it. I want proof.

Originally by ShaneK
If that is the case, then the problem is with the Texas Property code, not with deed restrictions per se.

Then I don’t want to see any more claims that Houston is a prime example of a place without zoning ordinances doing just fine on deed restrictions. Deed restrictions have developed in Texas law to perform the same function as zoning ordinances.

Originally posted by Flex
Maybe there are hundreds of thousands of municipalities around the country wondering why no one has bought any property since they instituted zoning ordinances?

Originally posed by ShaneK
Or maybe they're just able to get away with it because of other benefits the property in their location has. Your statement is not only small-minded and an excluded middle fallacy, it shows a profound ignorance of economics as well.

However, aside from the insults maybe you would like to dissect for me why my statement contains an excluded middle fallacy and is demonstrative of ignorance of economics?

I do not claim to be an economist.

Originally posted by Flex
They made an unproven assumption that all demand factors were eliminated with their second methodology.

Originally posted by ShaneK
Support this. It seems to me they did a good job of making sure those factors didn't have much of an effect on their conclusion.

I was pretty sure I was clear in my initial analysis of the study, but I’ll go over it again.

Their second methodology takes the sale price of the home, subtracts the cost of construction, and divides by the area of land. That’s it. This is described in three sentences in the third paragraph on page 15. The sale price of the home includes all costs, including all supply and demand factors which contribute to those costs. They remove a single supply factor; construction cost. The result is a total which includes all supply and demand costs minus construction costs. By dividing this by the area of land the house sits on, they arrive at the data in column 4 from table 4, which ranges from $1.74 per square foot in St. Louis to $63.72 per foot in San Francisco. This calculation generates a rate of price change per square foot for each municipality, including demand factors.

Originally posted by ShaneK
Show that their data are suspect.

I just did. Want to see it again?

Their second methodology takes the sale price of the home, subtracts the cost of construction, and divides by the area of land. That’s it. This is described in three sentences in the third paragraph on page 15. The sale price of the home includes all costs, including all supply and demand factors which contribute to those costs. They remove a single supply factor; construction cost. The result is a total which includes all supply and demand costs minus construction costs. By dividing this by the area of land the house sits on, they arrive at the data in column 4 from table 4, which ranges from $1.74 per square foot in St. Louis to $63.72 per foot in San Francisco. This calculation generates a rate of price change per square foot for each municipality, including demand factors.

Originally posted by Flex
Didn’t you wonder why Dallas and Seattle had negative numbers?

Originally posted by ShaneK
You're looking at the wrong column. Neither Dallas nor Seattle nor any of the other cities had negative numbers for Imputed Land Cost from Means Data.

Let me pull in your quote from a previous post.

Originally posted by ShaneK on 3-18-2005, 12:05AM

on average in urban and suburban areas of the country the price of a buildable quarter-acre lot is $15,409

Originally posted by Flex on 3-20-2005, 12:19AM

While you didn’t show how you arrived at this number, I assume you simply took the reported P’(L) value $1.415 and multiplied by 10890, the number of feet in an acre.

Originally posted by ShaneK on 3-20-2005, 4:45PM
And by the way, I did use that calculation, but I also double-checked it by using the data from their tables to average the figure and got the same number. I did it about three or four different ways, and got the same answer each time. So it seems right.

Okee-dokee. If you used $1.415 in your calculation, you must have either column 2 or column 3 on table 4. These are labeled as the Hedonic Price of Land per square feet linear specification and Hedonic Price of Land per square feet log-log specification. In column 2, the numbers range from -$0.83 to $2.89. In column 3, the number range from -$0.30 to $5.21.

Column 4, the Imputed Land Cost Mean, which you reference in your last post, has number ranging from $1.47 to $63.72.

Now I ask you, if you averaged the column 4 how in the world did you get an average ($1.415) lower than the minimum value ($1.47)? It can’t be done.

You also indicated previously that you used the reported P’(L) values which are only reported in column 2 and 3.

I’m trying to be as fair to you as I can. Your best tactic would have been to drop this argument. It is obvious that you used numbers from the Hedonic Price columns, either column 2 or 3. Both columns have negative values in them, which should have given you pause to think.

Don’t try to say that you were using the Imputed Land/Cost from Means Data column because you already admitted to using $1.415 in your calculation, which cannot come from the Imputed Land/Cost from Means Data column.

You best tactic on this point would be to just drop it.


Originally posted by Flex
BTW, the table suggests that Houston does not have lower home prices than Detroit solely because of zoning laws. I will grant that the average home price in Houston is the third lowest on the chart, but both Tampa and Pittsburgh have lower average home prices. Florida requires all municipalities to have a zoning ordinance, it’s a state law.

Originally posted by ShaneK
That's an invalid comparison, and one the study authors work very hard to avoid. They only compare the lot prices to buildable lots in the same city; they don't try to compare other cities in different areas with different economic situations. They only figure in to the aggregate data.

I agree that is an invalid comparison. I am not suggesting making a comparison between the two cities based on zoning laws. I’m just cautioning you not to make that comparison either.

Originally posted by Flex
It might make sense if it shows to the zoning board that you really aren’t planning on developing the entire parcel.

Originally posted by ShaneK
Why? Isn't it bad enough that you're making me go to mommy government to beg and plead to be able to do something with my own property that the voters said they wanted people to be able to do not eight months before?

Would you like some cheese with that.

Originally by Flex
And there is nothing that restricts a neighborhood association from pulling the same raw work.
Originally posted by ShaneK

The neighborhood assocation is bound by the terms of the contract, not by a municipal referendum. Stop comparing apples and accordians.

Also originally posted by ShaneK in the same post

When a HOA is established, the deed basically says that the person buying the property agrees to go with whatever the HOA says. It's kind of like on the contracts we give our clients, where it simply says they agree to the Terms and Conditions, which are subject to change without notice. We have the TaC posted on our website and it is the client's responsibility to read it and make sure he agrees with it.

I stand by my statement. If a municipal government can change the requirements without notice, so can an HOA. I could care less that there is a line in the deed saying that they agree to conform to the HOA’s arbitrary changes. Can a buyer buy the home without that line in it? You have got the same choice with an HOA managed deed restriction as with a zoning ordinance, you can refuse to buy the house.

[I[Originally posted by Flex[/I]
The John Locke people never answered my question

Originally posted by ShaneK
You said you found the report; the methodology etc. is all there.

What part of “The John Locke people never answered my question� did you not understand.
No, I never found the report, the link on their website was broken. So I asked them for it, and have yet to receive a response.

Originally Posted by ShaneK
Or maybe it just means that the kind of people who run businesses don't conform to how people as a whole behave? Again, you resort to fallacious extremes. Let's look at a possible permutation of this:

While I might argue that I’m not resorting to extremes, I’m willing to entertain the idea that businessmen don’t conform to how people as a whole behave.

But this is your claim. Prove it.

Originally by ShaneK
But our founders also set up the states to be the arbiters of common law; the Federal government doesn't have any authority over it. That's why it's not mentioned in Article I Section 8. The Federal government was supposed to be severely limited in what it can do.

And then, of course, there are the state Constitutions, which I was clearly including. The state Constitutions are supreme over all of the state's laws.

Cripes, what are we arguing about again. Oh yeah. The rights of citizens and their representatives elected by these citizens to legislatures to enact laws.

These laws so enacted can violate other laws, including State law, and Federal Law. Any law that is in conflict with other laws is tried in the in the Judicial Branch which decides where the conflict lies, and what interpretations are allowable or even that a law is revoked.

In general new laws replace old laws, this is because the courts realize that changes in society may require change in the laws. However, there is one important exception, the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of this land sets down certain rights which are timeless.

Zoning ordinances have been challenged on the ground that they violate the rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution, and the Supreme Court of the United State has stated that they do not violate any of the rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution.

Originally posted by ShaneK
How does the fact that one state managed to write a tyrannical law regarding deed restrictions help your point? You're extrapolating that to all deed restrictions, and that's invalid. As I said, the problem there is with the Texas deed restriction laws. If there were no such laws, and they were only enforced in courts of equity, there would be no such issue.

I don’t have a point. I’m rebutting evidence you have presented as support for your assertions that zoning laws are more restrictive than deed restrictions. You pointed us to an essay about Houston and said it was an excellent essay. The essay clearly indicated that the author of the essay thought that zoning laws are unnecessary and that deed restrictions work just as well. I just pointed out that in Texas they do work very well, in fact they are really just about the same thing as zoning ordinances only handled by people who are not public officials.

Originally posted by ShaneK
Wrong. Trimble County isn't in Texas. Most of my examples come from NC since that's where I live. Such as my business partner and his neighborhood's street lights.

Okay, I’ll start looking closer at Trimble County zoning ordinances. Just give me a bit of time. I might have to dig into the North Carolina deed restriction laws too.

Originally posted by ShaneK
Bully for you. But why can't other people have the freedom to decide for themselves how much cost is significant?

We’ve touched on three options. Two of them result in handing a certain amount of control over your property to someone else. Would you like to argue the third option?

Originally posted by ShaneK
Tu Quoque. You're just racking up the fallacies tonight!

It’s always a pleasure to learn. But I don’t think I’m doing too poorly.

Cheers,

-Flex

[shanek]

Originally posted by Flex
Funny, that pretty much what zoning ordinances do.

I never agreed to the zoning ordinance. I never agreed to waive my property rights and accept whatever the planning board and the commissioners say I should do. That's the difference. Yet again, I keep pointing this out, and yet again, that keeps getting ignored. Yet, it's the most important part of the equation.

Seriously though, If the regulations are the same, the means of entry is the same, the penalties are the same, and the only difference are the administrators, you are making a very fine disticntion.

But as I keep saying over and over again, that's not the only difference! I can willingly waive some of my rights. That doesn't mean that other people get to waive them for me.

Dishonest? It’s just as honest as the election for Commissioners. Or should I say it’s just as dishonest. I’m certain that many HOAs do chose their board members by election, but they are not required to.

So what? People chose to give the HOA some of their property rights. I made no such choice with the commissioners. And I (or at least, my family) was here first.

As for deed restrictions, one of the main points of your argument is that deed restrictions which cover an entire subdivision are the way to duplicate zoning ordinances. How are they handled without an HOA?

They could have a simple board of trustees, who exist not to enforce the rules on their own, but to act as an arbitration body whenever someone accuses their neighbor of being in violation.

Yes. I know you have been saying this. No one questions that you have been saying this. You, however have only presented one paper to justify this, and you miss-interpreted the paper.

Oh? I seem to recall correcting you on your claims about what the paper says. Quite a few times.

What I said was that zoning has not been shown to be a significant part of supply costs based on the paper “The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability� The reason I can claim that zoning is not a shown to be a significant part of supply costs is because the numbers they generated with their second methodology includes demand factors.

I've already responded to this. Please either address my response or do not bring it up again.

As for why people vote zoning down for a community, hey I don’t know, ask them.

I have. Their answer is, almost infallibly, that they don't like zoning and want control over their own property. And when I ran for County Commissioner partly on a platform of eliminating zoning, I ran into a lot of people who were against the zoning ordinance. I actually ran into more people who were against it than for it. That mirrors the experience seen in the Commissioners meeting back when they were debating issuing the ordinance (without a referendum, mind you); far more people who spoke at the meeting were against it than were for it.

And a lot of the people who were for it, were for it because basically that's the only thing they knew and they didn't know how it could be any other way.

You seem to be assuming that zoning is imposed on communities without a vote. When, in fact people vote for zoning ordinances all the time.

And usually, they vote "no" by an overwhelming margin.

But even if zoning does pass, say, by a 60% margin. How does that give them the right to oppress the other 40% who don't agree? With deed restrictions, you need 100% agreement. You can't force someone to sign over his property rights; that's called "duress" and it automatically makes any contract void.

You have made a claim here that I would like you to substantiate. The claim is zoning is consistently voted down every time a place without zoning puts it to the vote of the people. Would you agree that if I find as many places which voted for zoning by a large margin that this canard is put to rest? Or is there some other criteria you would like to use to validate that claim. I don’t trust it. I want proof.

I've given several examples: Trimble County, KY, Rutherford and Bumcombe Counties in NC, Houston, TX.

But again, that's not the point. The point is, can you show any problems that zoning purports to solve, that exist in areas without zoning, that do not also exist in areas with zoning?

That should be a simple thing to show if zoning is necessary.

Deed restrictions have developed in Texas law to perform the same function as zoning ordinances.

Again, that's a problem with Texas law, not deed restrictions. This is a red herring, nothing more.

However, aside from the insults maybe you would like to dissect for me why my statement contains an excluded middle fallacy and is demonstrative of ignorance of economics?

Oh, come on! You equated a claim that zoning reduces demand for opening a business as an area withg " no one has bought any property since they instituted zoning ordinances." Do I really need to show you the excluded middle fallacy there?

As for economics, it's basic supply and demand that a reduction in demand means that there are fewer people willing to purchase the good or service at every price level. No one ever claimed that one factor would result in nobody buying anything. Remember the principle of economics (and pretty much all of the behavioral sciences) that people individually are unpredictable; it's only when they act en masse that they form patterns that can be studied.

Their second methodology takes the sale price of the home, subtracts the cost of construction, and divides by the area of land. That’s it.

[sigh]

Let's go over it again:

We have a home on a 1/4-acre lot that sells for $300,000.

Right next door, we have an empty 1/4-acre lot which, aside from the absence of the home, is otherwise entirely identical. To build the exact house on that lot will cost $200,000.

Now, how much will the empty lot sell for?

It's an easy answer. And coming up with that answer will show you the flaw in your thinking, and you'll see that the same demand factors figure in to both the price of a buildable lot and the price of an existing home.

I’m trying to be as fair to you as I can.

Then why do you continually ignore points I bring up over and over again?

I agree that is an invalid comparison. I am not suggesting making a comparison between the two cities based on zoning laws. I’m just cautioning you not to make that comparison either.

I haven't. So this is another red herring.

Would you like some cheese with that.

Ah, I see. Standing up for one's property rights is whining. It's interesting to see someone display that much disdain for liberty. What would you have said to Jefferson upon reading the Declaration of Independence?

I stand by my statement. If a municipal government can change the requirements without notice, so can an HOA.

But one must agree to the terms of the contract to waive their rights and accept the decisions of the HOA! Each and every person, individually, must do that! If you don't, the contract is void! That's not the case with zoning!!!

Geez...my autistic son is easier to get through to than you...

I could care less that there is a line in the deed saying that they agree to conform to the HOA’s arbitrary changes. Can a buyer buy the home without that line in it?

Yet another red herring that I have dispelled several times.

You have got the same choice with an HOA managed deed restriction as with a zoning ordinance, you can refuse to buy the house.

My land was here before any zoning ordinance. My family owned the land before any zoning ordinance. My family never signed anything away. Yet, the zoning laws apply to me. An HOA wouldn't. Not unless I personally, as the owner of the property, agreed to it.

If someone comes around wanting to start up an HOA, I can tell them where to stick it and it doesn't apply to me. That's not the case with zoning.

Property rights lawyers like to talk about a bundle of sticks. If you have all of the sticks, you have full rights to your propety. When you agree to form an HOA, you give that HOA some of your sticks. When you sell your house to someone else, you can only sell the sticks that you have—and consequently, the person is only buying the sticks the homeowner has to sell.

I don't know how many different ways I can explain it. I don't know how many times I'm supposed to explain it before it sinks through your thick skull. But that point, as I keep saying, is what makes all the difference in the world.

While I might argue that I’m not resorting to extremes, I’m willing to entertain the idea that businessmen don’t conform to how people as a whole behave.

But this is your claim. Prove it.

That should be simple. Just go ask a bunch of people who a business should be run. On this very forum, we've had people defending the minimum wage by saying that the business can just take the money from "excess profits." But business owners know they can't do that. On this very forum, we've had people accuse plywood and water sellers of price-gouging whenever Florida has a hurricane; a businessman would know that expenses have gone up drastically, as has demand, and that this can only result in much higher than normal prices.

[qoute]In general new laws replace old laws, this is because the courts realize that changes in society may require change in the laws. However, there is one important exception, the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of this land sets down certain rights which are timeless.[/quote]

The state Constitutions also have this supremacy over their state's laws, although the US Constiution is supreme over them.

Zoning ordinances have been challenged on the ground that they violate the rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution, and the Supreme Court of the United State has stated that they do not violate any of the rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution.

The Supreme Court also said that the draft is not involuntary servitude and that stopping people from buying ads near election time isn't an abrogation of free speech or free press. So you'll forgive me if I'm not impressed with the "Supreme Court said" argument. The Supreme Court doesn't give us our rights and has no power under the Constitution to grant or negate rights.

I don’t have a point.

Yes, you do: you're making the point that deed restrictions are no different from zoning.

We’ve touched on three options. Two of them result in handing a certain amount of control over your property to someone else. Would you like to argue the third option?

What, leaving people alone and accepting the fact that you shouldn't have control over their life? Sounds like the best plan to me.

[Flex]

I hope no one thought I had given up.

From some of the responses, I half expect that ShaneK will turn out to be just a troll, but I’m having fun so I’m not complaining.

I have been reading North Carolina Supreme and Appellate court cases. It’s been a blast. I’m a bit better informed now about the similarities and differences between deed restrictions and zoning ordinances. But first, a short digression.

From ShaneK’s last post:

[/I]Originally by ShaneK[/I]
you're making the point that deed restrictions are no different from zoning.

Not exactly ShaneK. I was attempting to learn the difference, and aside from some ill-defined property rights issues, I was unable to distinguish between the two based on the descriptions you provided.

After all, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and ****s like a duck, we may be justified in considering the possibility that it might be a duck.

To re-cap. As I see it, ShaneK provided several arguments to show the problems with zoning. First, they are invasive of a person’s property rights. Second, they increase the cost of housing. And third, deed restrictions can do the same job without invading people’s property rights or increasing the cost of housing.

I happen to agree with the first one. Zoning ordinances do affect what you can or can’t do with your land. However, are the restrictions benign enough to make little difference if you are purchasing a home? I don’t think we have answered that question, and I’m afraid that the answer is a subjective one, not an objective one. So this question may not ever be answered satisfactorily for everyone.

Do the restrictions on property rights adversely affect the people who live in an area which was not zoned, and becomes zoned? Yes, and more so because there is little that an individual can do if everyone else in the neighborhood decides in favor of zoning. However, there is an out. Most zoning ordinances allow grandfathering of existing conditions to avoid hurting the person who now has their property rights reduced. So, ShaneK, you have complained about not being allowed to put a gutter on your house. Was there a gutter on the house before the zoning ordinance was put in place? If there was, you have a real good chance of being able to replace it just because of grandfathering.

Mind you, although I don’t know, I suspect that ShaneK lives in a historical district where the town is stricter about these things. The flip side of that coin is that historical districts are usually in high demand so his property is just that much more valuable. ShaneK doesn’t think so, because he draws a distinction between the price someone is willing to pay and the actual value of the materials used.

Now, what does seem strange to me is that gutters are usually not restricted by zoning (except in historical districts) because they are such useful devices. Gutters help keep water away from the foundation of the house and prevent subsidence. Only a nut would prevent someone from putting gutters on a home which needs it. Which is again a good case to allow ShaneK to put gutters on his home. I do not know the details of this whole issue, but I find the whole thing somewhat surprising.

Be that as it may, I fully understand where ShaneK is coming from when he says that he is upset because zoning ordinances prevent him from doing things to his home which he thinks are necessary.

I have refrained from presenting the anecdotes I’ve heard from people on the other side of this argument. I’ve been talking with co-workers and most of them have a story about someone who lives in an area without zoning and cannot get a neighbor to mow a lawn or remove junk from the yard. This is not evidence unless someone provides documentation, which I have not seen. I’m sure there are plenty of people who abuse the lack of zoning ordinances, just as there are people who are abused by zoning ordinances. But a story is hearsay whether you agree with its sentiments or not.

As for increasing the cost of housing, ShaneK presented one piece of evidence for this. After reviewing the report, I find it less than convincing. Since I have reviewed this many times in earlier posts, I’m just going to respond to ShaneK’s last comment:

[I}Originally posted by ShaneK[/I]

Let's go over it again:

We have a home on a 1/4-acre lot that sells for $300,000.

Right next door, we have an empty 1/4-acre lot which, aside from the absence of the home, is otherwise entirely identical. To build the exact house on that lot will cost $200,000.

Now, how much will the empty lot sell for?

It's an easy answer. And coming up with that answer will show you the flaw in your thinking, and you'll see that the same demand factors figure in to both the price of a buildable lot and the price of an existing home.

Exactly. I’m not arguing this point. In fact, that is the point I have been making all along. In Table 4, under the Imputed Land Cost from Means Data (Entensive Margin), the price of existing homes (or construction costs of new homes) is removed from the data and the slope of the cost of that land per unit area is determined.

Yet, as you mention, there are demand factors still embedded in the data in column 4, the Imputed Land Cost from Means Data column.

This is in direct contrast to the data in column 3, Hedonic Price of Land/square foot Log-Log specification. There are no demand factors in column 3, nor building costs, nor zoning costs, nor any costs associated with anything other than the raw cost of the land. It’s a very clever equation, taking the derivative of P(L) with respect to L of the original equation. P’(L) must equal p. The land cost without any other factors, including demand. If you don’t understand how the authors reached that point, you may want to examine your freshman calculus book again.

The trouble arises because the authors compare the two numbers, with the assumption that the differences in the two numbers are completely due to zoning costs, even though one number includes demand factors and the other doesn’t. The paper doesn’t really prove what the authors are claiming. (Which is not exactly uncommon in academic circles which rely on a publish or perish attitude. I wish we as a society could do something about that.)

Finally, what are the differences between deed restrictions, managed by an HOA or not, and zoning ordinances.

I don’t have the cases in front of me, but the Supreme Court of North Carolina has had cases dealing with both deed restrictions and zoning ordinances.

I am still unsure of how a deed restriction gets placed on a piece of property. All the cases I have read about thus far had deed restrictions placed on the property when the property was subdivided. Removing a deed restriction in North Carolina seems to take a court order, so there is a barrier to removal. Newer deed restrictions also seem to be registered at the municipality, while the older ones may only be written on the deed.

There doesn’t seem to be any way to negotiate on a deed restriction during the sale of property. Either you buy it that way, or you don’t purchase the property, and deed restrictions also seem to transfer with the title.

Deed restrictions have been removed by North Carolina Appellate and Supreme Courts for the following reasons: they violate another law, especially the penal code; or, the neighborhood has sufficiently changed to make the deed restriction unreasonable, for example a deed restriction for the lot to be always used as residential but the rest of the street has become a business district; finally, a deed restriction is only valid if it reflects the overall plan of the community. The last one is a bit subjective, and the courts have been very careful in requiring not only a registered plan (or obvious plan) but also a plan which admits of no disorder. Deed restrictions have been removed by the courts for as little reason as a thousand home community has already allowed a single commercial business, which means that the design of the community is not consistent.

The North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that any ambiguity in a deed restriction must always be decided in favor of the property owner. Thus, a few years ago a suit occurred between a developer and a bunch of residents where the developer was putting up townhouses on lots which were deed restricted to single residences. At least, that’s what the homeowners thought, the Supreme Court examined the deed restrictions closely and determined that because town houses were not specifically prohibited, and only consisted of a single building, that they were permitted to be built.

A HOA may be formed and request people to sign up to deed restrictions, and in North Carolina deed restrictions may not be imposed. Except in registered planned communities. Apparently in 2002 a law was passed in North Carolina that allows a planned community, which is registered as a planned community with it’s municipality, to enact and enforce deed restrictions within their community on an 80% or greater vote by the members of the community. The 80% is a minimum level, the by-laws of the planned community are allowed to specify a higher percentage.

The North Carolina Supreme Court has also heard cases about zoning ordinances. Here’s one you might like. A chemical plant a few years ago petitioned a neighboring municipality to adopt the land the plant was on. The plant the land was on was about six miles from the border of the adopting municipality. The adopting municipality zoned the land for industrial use even though the residents and the original municipality had zoned it as residential with a conditional use clause for the chemical plant. The North Carolina Supreme Court saw the actions of the chemical plant as being subversive to the original municipality and of no benefit to the adopting municipality and reversed the adoption of the land.

Anyway, way back in the 1920’s the North Carolina Supreme Court heard a case arguing that zoning ordinances were unconstitutional under the North Carolina Constitution. The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected that argument, first citing the recent United States Supreme Court case and then coming to the conclusion that a municipality is allowed to use it’s police power to provide a broad, general, direction of growth.

More recently there have been a few cases covering spot zoning and contract zoning. In all cases the North Carolina court system has said these practices are illegal. A spot zoned area is a change in the zoning of a small, or single, parcel in such a manner as to not conform to the overall plan of an area. Your friend who wanted to open a farmers market and get the three acres zoned as commercial could have been fought on spot zoning grounds. That is, other residents could have sued the zoning commission for spot zoning, and the courts would have to decide if the re-zoning was just part of normal development as part of a plan, or a case of spot zoning and illegal.

Contract zoning is a little less ambiguous. A municipality is not allowed to re-zone an area with the understanding that only a specific type of business is going to be opened up on the site. That is, the zoning commission could not say to your friend, “Okay, you can have your land re-zoned, but only if you promise to put up nothing more than a farmer’s market.� Once the land has been re-zoned, any of the approved uses for that land are allowed.

The North Carolina courts have stated that municipalities which desire to restrict the usage of a piece of land to a particular use already have a tool to do so in the form of conditional use zoning. Conditional use zoning allows a municipality to approve the development of some activity for a specific purpose outside the normal zoning of an area. The North Carolina courts have said that conditional use permits should be used often to allow a reasonable development plan. A couple of the cases I have looked at almost read as if the courts are suggesting that more conditional use permits should be issued.

I should also point out that in North Carolina a person has two choices when selling a home. The seller can sell the home “as-is� and sign a paper to that affect, or disclose facts about the home. If the seller chooses to disclose facts about the home, the seller is required to reveal all zoning restrictions and deed restrictions. Other states have different laws about seller’s disclosure. For example, in California the seller is required to disclose any deed restrictions but not zoning restrictions.

So, I’ll revisit my little chart.

_______________________________Zoning ordinances_________Deed Restrictions
Limits land usage---------------------------------Yes--------------------------------Yes
Legally enforceable-------------------------------Yes--------------------------------Yes
------In both cases there are exceptions, but generally yes.
Always chosen by landowner--------------------No---------------------------------No
------Deed restrictions already in place are not negotiable.
Always apparent to landowner-------------------No---------------------------------No
------Apparently in N.C. they both are readily available. Good show.
Enforced by Local Government-----------------Yes---------------------------------No
------Technically, in both cases, the judicial branch gets involved eventually
Enforced by Non-elected group------------------No---------------------------------Yes
------A HOA may be elected, but is not required to be.
Expire if not enforced-----------------------------No---------------------------------Yes
------In N.C. they do not expire unless they have a built in time limit.
Right of Appeal----------------------------------Limited----------------------------Limited
Process of Appeal-----------------------------Appeals Board--------------------Court System
------Even the ordinances may end up in the court system.
Majority Rules------------------------------------Yes--------------------------------Typically
------Not necessarily in N.C. for deed restrictions
Illegal if violates other laws---------------------Yes----------------------------------Yes
------Still true.

Well, ShaneK, I think we have gone as far as we can with this one.

I was hoping that you would provide more evidence. I’m still going to be looking up the other two municipalities you mentioned, but at this point I don’t really expect to find anything exciting.

I’ve enjoyed the conversation. I knew that I wasn’t going to convince you, but I really enjoy examining other people’s points of view.

I think there are problems with zoning ordinances. I also see that there is some benefit to zoning ordinances. Both for the reason that the people enacting the zoning ordinances are held accountable to their actions and that zoning ordinances tend to smooth development in a region. That is also one of the problems, because a zoning commission can not only allow development to take place at a controlled rate, but also prevent any development at all.

These opinions of mine are not based on evidence, I know that, so I don’t expect to sway anyone to them.

Cheers,

-Flex

[shanek]

Originally posted by Flex
After all, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and ****s like a duck, we may be justified in considering the possibility that it might be a duck.

But the problem is, I'm not denying that there are some deed restrictions out there where the agreements are so extreme as to rise to the same effect as zoning. What I am pointing out is the difference between these agreements and zoning, which is that people voluntarily agree to the deed restrictions. No one can come and force them on me like they have with zoning. That's why they're consistent with property rights. I have to give up those sticks voluntarily; with zoning, the government just takes them.

Do the restrictions on property rights adversely affect the people who live in an area which was not zoned, and becomes zoned? Yes, and more so because there is little that an individual can do if everyone else in the neighborhood decides in favor of zoning. However, there is an out. Most zoning ordinances allow grandfathering of existing conditions to avoid hurting the person who now has their property rights reduced. So, ShaneK, you have complained about not being allowed to put a gutter on your house. Was there a gutter on the house before the zoning ordinance was put in place?

It was new construction. So no. And I've been informed that there are heavy fines if I put one up anyway.

What does it matter if the structure was there before? I was here first. Before the zoning. I never agreed to the zoning. Ergo, my property rights have been violated.

Mind you, although I don’t know, I suspect that ShaneK lives in a historical district where the town is stricter about these things.

Nope. In fact, it's all old farmland that had been regrown with pines.

Now, what does seem strange to me is that gutters are usually not restricted by zoning (except in historical districts) because they are such useful devices. Gutters help keep water away from the foundation of the house and prevent subsidence. Only a nut would prevent someone from putting gutters on a home which needs it.

That describes our County Commissioners pretty well.

I have refrained from presenting the anecdotes I’ve heard from people on the other side of this argument. I’ve been talking with co-workers and most of them have a story about someone who lives in an area without zoning and cannot get a neighbor to mow a lawn or remove junk from the yard. This is not evidence unless someone provides documentation, which I have not seen.

What I would ask is, have they actually talked to their neighbor? Have they offered to do something in return for his manicuring his lawn? Or are they just saying "there oughta be a law" and wanting the government to use the force of the gun to make him mow it?


I think I've responded sufficiently to the Harvard study, so I won't continue to flaggelate this particular deceased equine.

I am still unsure of how a deed restriction gets placed on a piece of property. All the cases I have read about thus far had deed restrictions placed on the property when the property was subdivided. Removing a deed restriction in North Carolina seems to take a court order, so there is a barrier to removal.

As it should be, with any contract.

[some examples deleted as I don't have any specific response for them]

More recently there have been a few cases covering spot zoning and contract zoning. In all cases the North Carolina court system has said these practices are illegal. A spot zoned area is a change in the zoning of a small, or single, parcel in such a manner as to not conform to the overall plan of an area. Your friend who wanted to open a farmers market and get the three acres zoned as commercial could have been fought on spot zoning grounds. That is, other residents could have sued the zoning commission for spot zoning, and the courts would have to decide if the re-zoning was just part of normal development as part of a plan, or a case of spot zoning and illegal.

Well, the county attorney was there the whole time and never mentioned any legal problems with it. He's always chiming in on legal issues and ramifications, so I feel confident in saying that this must not have applied in this case.

Contract zoning is a little less ambiguous. A municipality is not allowed to re-zone an area with the understanding that only a specific type of business is going to be opened up on the site. That is, the zoning commission could not say to your friend, “Okay, you can have your land re-zoned, but only if you promise to put up nothing more than a farmer’s market.� Once the land has been re-zoned, any of the approved uses for that land are allowed.

This was specifically brought up, and was, in fact, the point of contention: they couldn't force him to only have his produce stand and not sell alcohol.

Besides, I don't care how my land is zoned. I should be able to sell alcohol or any other legal product on my own property.