Yep, very familiar with Coase, and I agree transaction costs matter and would factor in to how any deregulation would play out.
I think we’d be better off in the long run without Euclid, because I think the economy would greatly improve if people had more freedom to decide what they wanted to do with their land and buildings. But at the same time, I don’t think the change would be as radical as many might imagine. The obvious case in point being Houston, which has no zoning, but looks just like Miami or New Orleans, because it still requires car-oriented design.
Like I get the conceptual elegance of this shift to property rights, and the subsidiarity, and flexibility. But I think that, on balance, it would tend to conserve our built environment more than the status quo because it would be subject to millions of interactions between incumbent property owners, insulated from the needs of those without property that can be expressed thru the political process. Whereas zoning, as a tool of social engineering, can be altered top down. For ill and for good.
Taking away the power (via Euclid repeal) without giving a whole bunch of reciprocal property rights out would be much better, and open a more lesseiz Faire situtation, like the old times.
And would incumbent property owners object to the forced easements, it would be a clear case of takings… I know I would!
Maybe this could be partly solved with opt-in easements at the time of zoning liberalization with a 1-2 year option window + you only get an easement the applies to your neighbor’s property if they opt in too?
By requiring adjacent neighbors to opt in together, it would give a pathway for property owners who want the easement living next to a neighbor who doesn’t want it to negotiate a payment themselves! Maybe there’s a price for which you would opt a property in 😉
Oh I like that idea! One of the big lessons from Houston is that if you default to permissive but then allow a mechanism for people to restrict their lot or neighborhood that requires some effort, then the hardcore NIMBYs channel their effort into creating little restricted pockets instead of ferociously fighting city-wide policy. It’s not perfect, but I think it’s a pretty good compromise that allows an escape hatch for people who are most fiercely opposed to change.
So, I'm working with a small town whose fire department cannot properly attack a fire in a structure more than 36 ft in height. But zoning is gone. Will the property owner who wants to build higher remedy this, which in this case would require not just new apparatus, but a new building?
So, I screw up the propane tank on my grill and my deck at the rear of the house is ablaze. But a few years ago my neighbor and I put tool sheds along the property line. Where do firefighters lay hose? Through the front door, I guess.
So, the zoning has gone. I decide that I need more space and cover my lot with a roof. Even if that doesn't shade a neighbor, it doubles the storm water runoff. Am I prepared to cover the unanticipated cost to the community that is responsible for the quality of the runoff?
None of this is to say that we can't build tall buildings or attached buildings or that we can't have full lot coverage where that has been properly anticipated. All of it is to say there are dozens of reasons why the rules are what they are. The connection between the reason and the rule is not always ideal, but civic life involves a lot more than two neighbors agreeing about an immediate issue.
BTW, while Houston does not have a zoning map. It does have height limits and setbacks. It even has numerous written regulations that affect the location of particular uses just like a zoning map would.
I take Seth's point, below. Recordation of thousands of easements, which reciprocal rights would be, is possible, but you'd have to create a separate court system to manage it in a city of any size. Likewise, his point about that approach inhibiting rather than allowing incremental change. It would cut both ways, I think, with some benefits, but most people are risk averse so my bet is that it stifles even simple positive changes more often than not.
Local land use regulation is imperfect. Seriously so, sometimes. But despite all you read these days it did not arise as a tool of segregation. It was quickly adapted to that in many places, and that's sad. But it shouldn't obscure the purely practical reasons for regulating land use.
I, myself, knew little of these sort of property rights as "sun rights", yet they make total sense.
The one problem with replacing zoning with them, IMO, is that it would force me to *talk to my neighbor* *shudders*.
Do you happen to have any example of any real-world city where setbacks have been replaced with these rights?
And if so, do you know if their culture happens to be overtly pro-social? or if somehow people just intuitively seek to not build anything in a way that would bother their neighbor, as to minimize the chance of having a shouting match over the new construction?
Banger Andrew.
Are you familiar with Ronald Coase?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem
Seems like in general it would weaken the power of zoning changes for good or ill.
If Euclid were overturned, and we did this change, would we be better off?
Yep, very familiar with Coase, and I agree transaction costs matter and would factor in to how any deregulation would play out.
I think we’d be better off in the long run without Euclid, because I think the economy would greatly improve if people had more freedom to decide what they wanted to do with their land and buildings. But at the same time, I don’t think the change would be as radical as many might imagine. The obvious case in point being Houston, which has no zoning, but looks just like Miami or New Orleans, because it still requires car-oriented design.
Like I get the conceptual elegance of this shift to property rights, and the subsidiarity, and flexibility. But I think that, on balance, it would tend to conserve our built environment more than the status quo because it would be subject to millions of interactions between incumbent property owners, insulated from the needs of those without property that can be expressed thru the political process. Whereas zoning, as a tool of social engineering, can be altered top down. For ill and for good.
Taking away the power (via Euclid repeal) without giving a whole bunch of reciprocal property rights out would be much better, and open a more lesseiz Faire situtation, like the old times.
And would incumbent property owners object to the forced easements, it would be a clear case of takings… I know I would!
Maybe this could be partly solved with opt-in easements at the time of zoning liberalization with a 1-2 year option window + you only get an easement the applies to your neighbor’s property if they opt in too?
By requiring adjacent neighbors to opt in together, it would give a pathway for property owners who want the easement living next to a neighbor who doesn’t want it to negotiate a payment themselves! Maybe there’s a price for which you would opt a property in 😉
Oh I like that idea! One of the big lessons from Houston is that if you default to permissive but then allow a mechanism for people to restrict their lot or neighborhood that requires some effort, then the hardcore NIMBYs channel their effort into creating little restricted pockets instead of ferociously fighting city-wide policy. It’s not perfect, but I think it’s a pretty good compromise that allows an escape hatch for people who are most fiercely opposed to change.
So, I'm working with a small town whose fire department cannot properly attack a fire in a structure more than 36 ft in height. But zoning is gone. Will the property owner who wants to build higher remedy this, which in this case would require not just new apparatus, but a new building?
So, I screw up the propane tank on my grill and my deck at the rear of the house is ablaze. But a few years ago my neighbor and I put tool sheds along the property line. Where do firefighters lay hose? Through the front door, I guess.
So, the zoning has gone. I decide that I need more space and cover my lot with a roof. Even if that doesn't shade a neighbor, it doubles the storm water runoff. Am I prepared to cover the unanticipated cost to the community that is responsible for the quality of the runoff?
None of this is to say that we can't build tall buildings or attached buildings or that we can't have full lot coverage where that has been properly anticipated. All of it is to say there are dozens of reasons why the rules are what they are. The connection between the reason and the rule is not always ideal, but civic life involves a lot more than two neighbors agreeing about an immediate issue.
BTW, while Houston does not have a zoning map. It does have height limits and setbacks. It even has numerous written regulations that affect the location of particular uses just like a zoning map would.
I take Seth's point, below. Recordation of thousands of easements, which reciprocal rights would be, is possible, but you'd have to create a separate court system to manage it in a city of any size. Likewise, his point about that approach inhibiting rather than allowing incremental change. It would cut both ways, I think, with some benefits, but most people are risk averse so my bet is that it stifles even simple positive changes more often than not.
Local land use regulation is imperfect. Seriously so, sometimes. But despite all you read these days it did not arise as a tool of segregation. It was quickly adapted to that in many places, and that's sad. But it shouldn't obscure the purely practical reasons for regulating land use.
Very interesting!
I, myself, knew little of these sort of property rights as "sun rights", yet they make total sense.
The one problem with replacing zoning with them, IMO, is that it would force me to *talk to my neighbor* *shudders*.
Do you happen to have any example of any real-world city where setbacks have been replaced with these rights?
And if so, do you know if their culture happens to be overtly pro-social? or if somehow people just intuitively seek to not build anything in a way that would bother their neighbor, as to minimize the chance of having a shouting match over the new construction?