It has become fashionable among housing advocates to attack exclusionary zoning—zoning that that prohibits or excludes multi-family housing. While these attacks correctly point out that exclusionary zoning contributes to higher housing costs, advocates are calling for increased inclusionary zoning—zoning that compels developers to include housing for low-income families in new projects. Because these advocates are unsullied by the ability to think in principles, they seem to believe that changing an adjective will change the results of zoning.
The stated purpose of zoning—in all of its variants—is to control land use within a community. This is true of exclusionary zoning and it is equally true of inclusionary zoning. Whether zoning officials are telling property owners what they can’t do or whether those officials are telling property owners what they must do, the property owner must abide by the demands and dictates of the zoning board. No matter what adjective is used, zoning prevents property owners from using their land as they think best.
The principle underlying exclusionary zoning, inclusionary zoning, and every other variation of zoning is the same: Non-owners of a parcel of land can determine how that property will be used. And because the principle underlying exclusionary zoning and inclusionary zoning is the same, the consequences are also the same.
Undoubtedly, inclusionary zoning will benefit some low-income families. But the number of housing units built for those families will not begin to put a dent in the shortage of housing for low-income families. And that is because zoning, in all of its variations, restricts the freedom of housing producers. If we truly want to solve the affordable housing crisis, then we need to reject zoning in all of its variations.
For decades it was fashionable to claim that exclusionary zoning is necessary to protect neighborhoods. Now it is fashionable to claim that inclusionary zoning is necessary to protect neighborhoods. For decades it was fashionable to claim that forcing developers to refrain from using their property as they deem best will be good for the community. Now it is fashionable to claim that forcing developers to use their property in a manner they wouldn’t voluntarily choose will be good for the community. The advocates of exclusionary zoning were wrong, and the advocates of inclusionary zoning are wrong. And the reason is because both sets of advocates are oblivious to principles.
Fashions change, but principles don’t. If housing advocates want to solve the affordable housing crisis, then they must reject what is fashionable. And in the place of fashion, they must embrace the principles of property rights.