Gracy Olmstead of the Federalist explains why there’s no good reason to blame Houston’s zoning rules for the devastation linked to Hurricane Harvey.
This was a big storm. It was inevitable that it would wreak havoc on the inhabitants of Houston and surrounding small towns.
But that’s not the explanation most media outlets are offering. Instead, they’re pointing to Houston’s libertarian-minded urban planners as the culprits for Harvey’s damage. …
… Houston’s approach to zoning is unique and libertarian, but it is not responsible for Harvey’s devastation. Ample parking lots and suburban sprawl may indeed make some flooding more likely—but that means Houston and its surrounding towns are similar to every other booming city in the United States, not different. And Harvey itself is unique: the last time Americans were so devastated by floodwater, Hurricane Katrina was ripping New Orleans apart.
As Grabar wrote for Slate, “No city is or should be designed to accommodate a one-in-a-million-year flood, which is what Harvey turned out to be.” …
.. It’s true that Houston needs to consider limits. Just like every other major metropolitan area, the city must tackle the pros and cons of unmitigated growth. …
… Limits and prudence are very conservative ideas, worth considering in all realms of governmental and social action (like health care, federal governance, tax policy, rule of law, and countless other issues). It’s laudable that the New York Times might consider such virtues worth exploring in this instance—but sad that our discussions of limits only become important when a conservative city has (supposedly) not exercised enough centralized control over its inhabitants. Solutions to our problems should be more vibrant, innovative, and thoughtful than turning every American city into another San Francisco.
