Land Use and Zoning
Recommendation
City and county elected officials should reform current land-use and zoning regulations to minimize detailed regulatory control and maximize market trends.
Background
Zoning to control land use originated in Germany in the late 1800s and was adopted by many parts of the U.S. in the 1920s. Unfortunately, U.S. planners quickly distorted the German model and created a planning fad. Many of the complaints about current land-use patterns, such as sprawl, can be traced to existing zoning regulations that strictly separate residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Thus, the increased use of zoning to solve problems will likely backfire, making problems worse. Therefore, it is time to consider comprehensive reform of city and county land use regulations.
Zoning myth and reality
Supporters tout zoning as an objective, professional, and efficient process that controls land uses in ways that benefit the entire community. But as anyone who has experienced it firsthand knows, the zoning process is in reality a highly politicized process where those with power in the community often gain advantages at the expense of those who lack it.
The result of many of these zoning regulations is to enrich existing property and homeowners by reducing the supply of buildable land. Zoning is a way to increase an individual’s wealth by voting for restrictive policies that result in higher home values.
Back to basics
Principle No. 1: Modern land use must be based on simplified and flexible rules
For example, one residential, one commercial, and one industrial zone could be established. Any broadly defined use would be permitted in those zones. Mixed use within these zones would be permitted by allowing residential in commercial zones and commercial in industrial zones.
By simplifying its land-use regulations, Anaheim, California, was able to redevelop successfully a rundown light industrial zone. The city added an overlay zone that allowed residential and commercial uses. The city also streamlined its permit and environmental processes to attract developers. This spurred economic development of the area.
Cities and counties should also remove zoning limitations to land-use innovations such as coving and bay home developments. When developers use coving, they build homes in an inconsistent pattern separate from the pattern of the streets. Coving allows for larger lot sizes without using more land. Other benefits of coving include reduced road lengths, less erosion from runoff, as well as greater privacy for homeowners.
Bay homes are another way to reduce infrastructure costs and create more open space. Bay homes are arranged so that families share the spaces outside the homes with other members of a homeowners association. Government hurdles such as specified minimum distances between home and streets often keep developers from building bay homes, however, despite their benefits. Local governments that present developers with these limitations make it hard for them to use these and other innovative techniques. Removing these zoning barriers would be beneficial to many communities.
Principle No. 2: Depoliticize decisions
Elected leaders must move to depoliticize the zoning process by allowing only those parties directly affected by the land-use decisions to comment on them. Officials should restructure the process to reflect its original goal of preventing one landowner from using his land to directly harm another's. Only those landowners who can show a direct and identifiable harm should be granted “standing” to comment on land-use decisions. This reform would go a long way toward taking the politics out of zoning and land-use decisions.
Principle No. 3: Moratoriums, impact fees, and adequate public facilities ordinances (APFOs) don't solve growth-related problems; they create them
Moratoriums can be devastating to the livelihoods of people whose employment is related to construction. These hurt developers, construction workers, bankers, lawyers, and people looking to sell their land. The negative consequences outweigh the proposed benefits.
Impact fees and APFOs are designed to compensate for the costs associated with increased growth. However, they are often unfairly applied, driving up the cost of housing. These fees should represent the difference between the cost of providing public services for the new development, and the income generated through the property and sales tax revenue that comes from new home development. APFOs force developers to pay "voluntary" fees to cover public service costs. These fees are later passed on to homebuyers. Through this process, housing costs are further increased. The result of impact fees and APFOs is that homebuyers are forced to pay their local governments twice for the costs the city incurs from growth. Buyers pay in the form of higher housing costs and property and sales taxes.
Instead of forcing developers to pay impact fees and APFOs, counties and cities should use marginal-cost pricing for public services. Developers should cover only the direct costs of extending infrastructure to new housing. For example, if a new housing development is located far away from the city's water and sewage lines, the developer should cover the costs associated with connecting the development to the system. This will save homebuyers from increased housing prices that are a result of impact fees and APFOs. It will also help prevent sprawl by making it more beneficial for developers to build closer to the city's existing facilities.
Principle No. 4: Re-establish the rule of law
Too many land-use regulations allow too much discretion on the part of the planning staff, planning boards, and elected bodies. Housing costs are driven up by a time-consuming process and public input. Cities and counties must establish a clear set of simple, flexible written rules. Once a development meets these requirements, the approval should be automatic. By simplifying land-use and zoning regulations, local governments can avoid many of the costly negative effects of excessive government regulation, as well as allow greater freedom for developers and property owners.
|
