LA’s Fear of Freedom

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

  • A Debate on Zoning

    This was originally posted on Live Oaks on December 4, 2008. Comments have not been migrated. The comments to a post at Houston Strategies evolved into a lengthy debate over zoning. The debate was civil and interesting. The advocate for zoning presented reasonable arguments which are shared by many people. Below are some excerpts from…

  • |

    Tucker’s War on Property Rights

    Conservatives have been attacking Biden’s suggestion that single-family zoning laws be eliminated or relaxed. They frequently call this a war on the suburbs, which is completely inaccurate. More significantly, the conservative argument is itself an attack on property rights. Tucker Carlson serves as an example. Tucker takes exception to the claim that zoning has been…

  • |

    Tribalism on the Warpath

    New York City is considering a law that will require “racial equity studies”—akin to environmental impact statements—for zoning changes. The law would require “a study that would analyze the area’s demographic conditions, quality of life, housing security and displacement risk index.” One supporter of the law acknowledges that rezoning has provided great benefits, but only…

  • |

    Repeal not Revision

    In cities across the nation, zoning laws are being revised to allow duplexes, fourplexes and other small multifamily housing in areas previously restricted to single-family homes. The argument behind these measures is that fewer government controls and restrictions on development will spur the construction of more affordable housing. The argument is correct, but relaxing land-use…

  • Friday Roundup 5-28-21

    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…

  • Friday Roundup 10-8-21

    In September, California passed SB 10, which allows cities to “upzone” and permit greater housing density in neighborhoods previously zoned for single-family homes. A “housing justice” organization, AHF, has filed a lawsuit that asserts “allowing legislators to override zoning restrictions violates the constitutional right of initiative by allowing local government to repeal or disregard initiative…