Many Americans view history as little more than a collection of semi-interesting stories. History, they believe, has little bearing on contemporary life. They believe that that was then, and this is now. Times have changed.
Viewed properly, history is an intellectual laboratory. We can trace the intellectual causes and motivations of events, movements, and individuals. We can see the consequences of ideas as they are put into practice. We can determine which ideas lead to progress and which lead to stagnation. We can see which ideas promote individual freedom and well-being, and we can see which ideas promote misery. We can learn which ideas are good and which ideas are evil.
Typically, when we study history, we learn about the consequences of something that happened. Seldom is there a meaningful reason (or even the ability) to study something that didn’t happen. The history of Houston since the 1990s debate over zoning provides us with a rare opportunity to do just that, and the lesson is enlightening.
Three times in the twentieth century, proposals were made to enact comprehensive zoning in Houston. The most recent attempt began in January 1990. Then-Councilman Jim Greenwood announced that the time was right for Houston to pass a zoning ordinance. City Council unanimously passed an ordinance authorizing the city to begin developing zoning maps. The debate over zoning had begun, and it would last nearly four years.
From the beginning, zoning advocates made numerous promises about the alleged benefits of zoning. When confronted with horror stories of zoning in other cities, they responded that Houston would avoid such problems with “Houston-style” zoning that would be developed from a consensus of the citizens. Zoning advocates predicted assorted catastrophes that awaited the city if zoning wasn’t adopted.
On November 2, 1993, Houstonians rejected zoning by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. In the ensuing twenty-three years the dire predictions made by zoning advocates have not materialized. And indeed, the exact opposite of their predictions has occurred. The reasons for that disparity, and the implications for present and future policy debates, is the lesson to be learned from history.
Click here to download the entire paper.