Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I think these are contrary statements. A restriction on a valuable use of my property "doesn't transfer that value to another", but it "makes everyone's (else's, I assume) property more valuable?
|
We seem to be having a fundamental dispute as to whether zoning raises or lowers property values, which makes it a bit hard to understand arguments beyound that basic point.
But, first, to respond to Bilmore's query--the two are not inconsistent statements because it's a mutual benefit agreement--by having everyone agree not to do something (sell to the dry cleaner, or atticus), the value of the property is raised for everyone. The cost of that is giving up unrestricted alienability. Sure, do some people give up a bit more and gain a little less? probably, but not in the way rent control operates, which is a gross transfer from landlord to tenant.
So, back to the effect of zoning. It does both: It lowers values of property by restricting their use to less valuable endeavors (a factory is going to be a more valuable use of nearly any property than residential). This basic fact is the one fringey can't explain away in her "wealth preservation" argument. Zoning does not preserve wealth, it destroys it (or limits it). Zoning does, however, get some of the lost wealth back by preventing others from appropriating that value as well--it preserves a particular character for a neighborhood/town/area by preventing the renegade from selling out. As Ty explained, it solves a collective action problem, and thereby enhances, to some degree, wealth.
But if you think that the second effect outweighs the first, such that restrictive residential zoning truly generates wealth, then you have to explain why we need it at all--as 1/2 acre mcmansions must surely be the most valuable use of the land--and why residents fight tooth and nail to retain the zoning restrictions they have, rather than let them be eliminated to allow each owner to sell to the highest bidder.
