One common argument against pro-housing zoning reform is that local or neighborhood control of housing policy is more democratic than the alternatives. This theory, if taken seriously, leads to absurd results.

Land use regulation in our country’s high-cost regions is often governed by small suburbs and by small urban neighborhoods. When a significant rezoning is proposed, a municipality gives notice to neighbors of the land to be rezoned. The rezoning often benefits the city or region as a whole by adding new housing or jobs.
However, the immediate neighbors of a project have no incentive to support new development—especially housing. This is so for two reasons. First, if they are homeowners, they benefit when new housing is not built because housing shortages mean that housing will be more expensive, and thus easier to sell for a profit. Second, even if the neighbors are renters and thus have an incentive to support new housing citywide, they may not have an incentive to support one or two new projects, because a smattering of new buildings are unlikely to affect citywide rents very much.
So when local government defers to so-called community input, rezoning will be rare and new housing will remain unbuilt. As I have written elsewhere, one obvious solution is for state governments to deregulate density—that is, to amend state zoning acts to allow landowners to build new housing without asking for rezoning. No state has gone this far, but some have carved out exceptions to local control, such as Oregon’s new "gentle density" law allowing duplexes, quadplexes, and other small-scale developments on lots zoned for single-family housing.
One common argument for the status quo is that neighborhood control of zoning is more democratic than state control of housing or deregulation. For example, socialist commentator Nathan Robinson writes "nobody deserves to have the future of their neighborhoods determined by developers rather than the democratic process." It seems to me that this claim is based on three assumptions: 1) control by government is more democratic, and thus more desirable, than control by individuals or corporations; 2) the zoning process is really, truly democratic; 3) if (2) is true, local control is even more democratic than state or national control. Each of these assumptions is either factually questionable or leads to absurd results.
The first assumption is essentially: collectivism good, private sector, bad. But if municipal control is more democratic than individual control, why should this idea be limited to new housing? For example, if government control is the most democratic policy, than it would be democratic for government to dictate the price at which each homeowner sells their house, but not so democratic to allow homeowners to decide to sell their houses at (often) inflated prices.
And for that matter, if municipal control is more desirable than private control, why limit this idea to housing? If there was no Constitution to limit local "democracy," cities could decide who gets to practice what religion within their borders, or zone neighborhoods for one religion or another.
The second assumption implies that the current zoning process is fairly close to some democratic ideal. If zoning was decided by referendum or was a major issue in local elections, this argument might be plausible. But often, public meetings are decisive—and these public meetings are often sparsely attended, and the people who attend them are not representative of the public as a whole. According to one study of zoning hearings in eastern Massachusetts, people who comment on zoning issues are whiter, older and more likely to be homeowners than the overall electorate. Sometimes, when the city council allows new housing, these commenters fight to delay or stop the housing through lawsuits. And since these lawsuits might involve just one or two plaintiffs, they are even less democratic than zoning meetings.
The third assumption implies that local governments are more democratic, and thus more desirable, than state or federal governments. But if this was true, why do we ever allow state and federal governments to limit local behavior? For example, federal laws prohibit local governments from engaging on racial or religious discrimination. But if local control is more democratic, why have federal civil rights laws?
You might respond: "This comparison is silly, because of course the public interest in racial equality outweighs the desires of local voters." But why isn’t this equally true of the public interest in allowing new housing?

Manufactured Crisis: Losing the Nation’s Largest Source of Unsubsidized Affordable Housing
Manufactured housing communities have long been an affordable housing option for millions of people living in the U.S., but that affordability is disappearing rapidly. How did we get here?

Americans May Be Stuck — But Why?
Americans are moving a lot less than they once did, and that is a problem. While Yoni Applebaum, in his highly-publicized article Stuck, gets the reasons badly wrong, it's still important to ask: why are we moving so much less than before?

Using Old Oil and Gas Wells for Green Energy Storage
Penn State researchers have found that repurposing abandoned oil and gas wells for geothermal-assisted compressed-air energy storage can boost efficiency, reduce environmental risks, and support clean energy and job transitions.

Updating LA’s Tree Rules Could Bring More Shade to Underserved Neighborhoods
A new USC study finds that relaxing Los Angeles’ outdated tree planting guidelines could significantly expand urban tree canopy and reduce shade disparities in lower-income neighborhoods, though infrastructure investments are also needed.

California's Canal Solar Projects Aim to Conserve Resources and Expand Clean Energy
California’s Project Nexus has begun generating electricity from solar panels installed over irrigation canals, with researchers and state agencies exploring statewide expansion to conserve water and boost clean energy production.

HHS Staff Cuts Gut Energy Assistance Program
The full staff of a federal program that distributes heating and cooling assistance for low-income families was laid off, jeopardizing the program’s operations.
Urban Design for Planners 1: Software Tools
This six-course series explores essential urban design concepts using open source software and equips planners with the tools they need to participate fully in the urban design process.
Planning for Universal Design
Learn the tools for implementing Universal Design in planning regulations.
Heyer Gruel & Associates PA
City of Moreno Valley
Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS)
City of Grandview
Harvard GSD Executive Education
Salt Lake City
NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
City of Cambridge, Maryland
