LA’s Fear of Freedom

ByBrian Phillips

The Los Angeles city council recently passed a resolution to oppose two bills being considered by the California Legislature. SB 9 would allow up to four housing units on a lot currently zoned for single-family and would apply across the state. SB 10 would allow cities to “upzone” and permit as many as ten housing units on a lot. (That the state has to give cities permission to give land owners permission for using their property illustrates the immense control that zoning gives government officials.)

The sponsor of the resolution, Paul Koretz, stated that the bills do nothing to address the shortage of affordable housing in the state. He added that the bills are an attempt by one state senator “to destroy local control over multi-family and single-family zoning in the state of California.”

Not surprisingly, Koretz completely evades the fact that zoning destroys a property owner’s control over the land he owns. Koretz and his ilk think that local government, not the property owner, should control how land is used. And they resent any attempt by state or federal governments to limit that control.

Both SB 9 and SB 10 will restore a little freedom to property owners. They will have more choices regarding the use of their land. The city council doesn’t want property owners to have the freedom to choose. The city council wants the power to dictate what owners may and may not do.

I can only speculate, but I must wonder if the city council fears what restoring a little freedom will demonstrate. Free individuals find innovative solutions to problems, and greater freedom in the use of land will undoubtedly spur construction of desperately needed housing. And this, I suspect, is what city council fears—freedom will enable individuals to do what government officials haven’t done.

Further, if some cities do “upzone” and permit even denser housing, when the success of freedom is demonstrated with more housing, pressure will ultimately be applied to other cities to “upzone.” And that would mean ceding some control over property owners, something that politicians are generally loathe to do.

Similar Posts

  • Friday Roundup 9-3-21

    ByBrian Phillips

    Ardent Residential wants to build a 275-unit apartment building in Austin. The company plans to set aside 10 percent of the units for low-income families. But the project requires rezoning to allow for higher density housing. When the Austin Zoning and Platting Commission (ZAP) recently heard the case, commissioners were deadlocked on approving the rezoning….

  • |

    Flipping the Zoning Coin

    ByBrian Phillips

    One of the increasingly popular tactics that cities are using to address America’s housing shortage is to relax or eliminate single-family zoning (SFZ), also known as exclusionary zoning. Some of those same cities are also starting to use a different form of zoning—inclusionary zoning—to address the housing shortage. In short, this means shifting from mandatory…

  • |

    Less than Ideal

    ByBrian Phillips

    In October 2020, the Cambridge, Massachusetts, city council enacted a citywide 100 percent affordable housing overly (AHO). The AHO allows apartment buildings up to four stories in all neighborhoods in the city. However, all units must be permanently affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income. The standard for affordability is paying…

  • The Road to Progress?

    ByBrian Phillips

    For the past several years, a controversial highway expansion has pitted neighbors against one another in Collin County. The proposed plan will wipe out homes and encircle what are now quiet neighborhoods. While nearly everyone agrees that the expansion is needed, nobody wants it in their backyard. But as an article in D Magazine points…

  • Friday Roundup 5-28-21

    ByBrian Phillips

    In a post about systemic racism, John McWhorter writes: A science teacher conference in Washington state last year included a PowerPoint slide preaching that “If you conclude that outcome differences by demographic subgroup are a result of anything other than a broken system, that is, by definition, bigotry.” This should have been corrected: “If you…

  • The City We Deserve

    Byjbp

    This was originally posted on Live Oaks on August 13, 2009. Comments have not been migrated. A recent piece on the KHOU web site asks if zoning is in Houston’s future. While the article does not come to a definitive conclusion, it implies that more restrictive land-use controls will be necessary. Or, as urban planner…