The right to property means the right to create, use, keep, and dispose of material values. Ownership means the freedom to use your property as you judge best. It means that you may use your property without interference from others, just as others may use their property with interference from you.
Zoning and land-use regulations removes this right and subjects land-use to the control of government officials. Zoning requires that you seek permission to use your property. Not only is this immoral, it is impractical.
Many studies have found that land-use regulations have a significant impact on the affordability of housing. As I wrote in the Spring issue of The Objective Standard:
There is a direct correlation between freedom in land-use and economic prosperity. For example, University of Washington professor Theo Eicher found that Seattle and Washington State’s land-use regulations have increased the cost of a $450,000 median home in the city of Seattle by $200,000, even taking into account inflation and demand. That is a 44 percent increase. That $200,000 results in the typical Seattle homeowner paying an additional $1,100 a month in principal, interest, property taxes, and other charges that would not exist were it not for these rights-violating land-use regulations. The steep cost of zoning has made home ownership virtually impossible for a large percentage of Seattle’s residents.
In contrast to most American cities, Houston has not enacted a comprehensive zoning ordinance. (The city has enacted numerous controls on land-use, but it remains far freer than most cities.) A report issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas concluded that Houston’s low housing prices are largely a result of its relative respect for property rights:
Houston and other metros such as Dallas and Atlanta that have relatively more permissive development policies have lower housing prices than more restrictive places do.
At $155,800, Houston’s median house price is the third lowest among the 12 largest U.S. metropolitan areas and is less than half the average for these cities. Houston’s median price is lower than even the national average, which includes inexpensive rural areas.
By comparison, the median house price in metropolitan San Francisco, where zoning laws and building codes are very strict, is $825,400.
In other words, where land-use controls and other regulations on building are most restrictive, housing is more expensive, and often outrageously so. The consequences of these controls are not limited to home ownership—they impact the cost of doing business, and consequently, the cost of living.
The absence of restrictive land-use controls in Houston allows developers to use land for its most efficient purpose. They can respond to the demands of the market, rather than the dictates of politicians and bureaucrats. They are free to act according to their own judgment, rather than pander to the whims of government officials.
Further, land-use regulations do not occur in a vacuum—they are usually accompanied with other controls on businesses and individuals. The mentality that embraces controls on land-use also embraces controls on other activities. Those who think it proper to dictate how their neighbors use their property do not limit themselves to land-use—virtually all activities are fair game. And with these controls come inefficiencies and additional costs. The end result is a higher cost of doing business, higher housing costs, and less economic activity—that is, job loss.
It is not a mere coincidence that those states with the most severe controls on economic activity are also the ones experiencing the most severe hardships during this recession. Freedom leads to economic prosperity; government regulations and controls lead to economic stagnation and decline.