Embrace “Get off my lawn!” energy when you confront single-use zoning
Planners act threatened by zoning reform, but they can still demonstrate their value by falling in love with problems rather than solutions.
Euclidean zoning is a regulation system that divides land into specific use zones and regulates the type and intensity of development within those zones. I’m a believer in steelman arguments—the strongest possible case for an opposing point of view. So, here are some of the strongest arguments I’ve heard for and against one of local government’s favorite tools.
Reasons to SUPPORT zoning
Provides predictability and stability for property owners and developers, making it easier to plan and invest in development projects.
Provides a clear and concise set of rules for property owners, developers, and local government officials to follow.
Helps maintain property values by ensuring that incompatible land uses are separated.
Provides for public health and safety by regulating land uses that could be hazardous to public health or safety.
Protects the character and aesthetic qualities of neighborhoods by ensuring that development is compatible with the surrounding area.
Promotes environmental protection by regulating land uses that could have a negative impact on the environment.
Separates high traffic areas from residential areas.
Can be used as a tool for social equity by ensuring that low-income neighborhoods are not disproportionately impacted by undesirable land uses.
Can be amended to reflect changing community needs and priorities.
Helps prevent conflict between neighboring property owners by regulating land uses that could be a nuisance to others.
Reasons to OPPOSE zoning
Can be restrictive, inflexible, and stifle creativity in urban planning and design.
Creates sprawl by encouraging low-density development and separating land uses from one another.
Perpetuates social and economic inequities by separating low-income neighborhoods from commercial areas and other amenities.
Increases traffic congestion and pollution by encouraging development in a way that is dependent on automobile travel.
Limits affordable housing options by forbidding “missing middle” and affordable housing.
Limits the availability of commercial options, making it difficult for small businesses to start up.
Excludes certain groups from certain neighborhoods by zoning in a way that favors certain types of residents.
Can be difficult and time-consuming to amend, making it challenging to respond to changing community needs and priorities.
Bureaucratic and cumbersome to enforce, leading to delays and inefficiencies in the development process.
Restricts property owners from using their land in a way that best suits their needs and interests.
If you’re a regular reader, you know I want to embrace “Get off my lawn!” energy when it comes to zoning.
I think it’s time to kick zoning out of the neighborhood once and for all because zoning laws prevent new businesses in a neighborhood, prevent mixing of uses, create car dependency, and limit the availability of affordable housing. It’s easily used as a weapon to swing at anyone who fits "those people" categories.
American Planning Association’s role in zoning
Racial discrimination is one of the most obvious. A research manager with APA wrote the following on their official blog:
As planners across the United States work to advance equity in their communities, many have begun to look more deeply into the history of zoning itself. From the very beginning, zoning and land-use regulation have historically been used to enforce and codify racial exclusion.
Segregationists sat on the very committee that developed the State Standard Zoning Enabling Act, a piece of legislation that is foundational to zoning and land use regulation in the United States. Particularly in the first half of the 20th century, the Federal government itself played an active and integral role in creating a regulatory environment that favored and incentivized racial segregation within local codes, maps, and policies.
APA also published articles (here and here) by a journalist demonstrating how zoning policy causes housing shortage, especially “missing middle,” the type of ordinary townhome, duplex, etc. that’s outlawed in so many localities.
Zoning has also been used as a good enough reason to violate the Fourth Amendment. A Michigan court ruled that a nosy neighbor was allowed to use a drone to spy on someone and submit photos and videos of activity that might violate local zoning rules. No violations were visible from the street, but they were sure rules were being broken.
This is a touchy subject for professional planners, because there’s an entire segment of the industry whose job it is to write, rewrite, and enforce zoning. It reminds me of Netflix cofounder Marc Randolph’s advice to fall in love with a problem, not a solution. Planners can demonstrate their value by focusing on the problems (lack of mixed use neighborhoods, lack of walkable streets, etc.) rather than the solutions (single-use zoning).
Now what?
None of us wants to live next to a tannery or slaughterhouse, but let’s face it, that’s not the way of the world anymore. Few of us have to deal with paper mills and gas stations. The common problem Americans are facing is residential-only neighborhoods that forbid any mixing of uses. No corner grocery, no walkable restaurant, no front-yard businesses.
Houston, TX doesn’t have zoning and yet the City has all sorts of restrictions against harmful land uses. Their residents also have the freedom to convert old mansions into fourplexes, which is part of why it continues to rank as one of the most affordable and diverse cities in America.
If you’ve seen Houston, you know it’s car-dependent and always proposing a new road expansion. A lack of zoning isn’t protecting Houston from other regulations that lead to car-oriented infrastructure. But adding zoning would guarantee car-oriented infrastructure, as demonstrated by every zone-happy local government in the country.
You know what I think about single-use zoning that sprawls us out across creation, but I’m curious to hear your thoughts. Are the zoning abolition trade-offs worth it?