Background: At the beginning of the 20th century, most neighborhoods in America included a mixture of land uses. Commercial enterprises, such as grocers and restaurants, existed in close proximity to residences. The type of residences was also mixed, with single-family, duplexes, small apartment buildings, and rooming houses providing an assortment of housing options within a neighborhood. Declaring these mixed uses “incompatible,” reformers began demanding zoning to segregate land uses.
Many of the first zoning laws were explicitly racist, prohibiting blacks from living in predominantly white neighborhoods and vice versa. When these laws were declared unconstitutional, cities found another way to achieve racial segregation—single-family zoning. At the time, few blacks could afford to buy a house. Single-family zoning created racial and economic segregation.
Today, a growing number of individuals from across the political spectrum are recognizing single-family zoning as a contributing factor in the housing shortage. Cities across the nation are relaxing or eliminating single-family zoning and “upzoning” to allow denser housing development. But there are many who oppose the elimination of single-family zoning.
- The primary argument against eliminating single-family zoning is that local governments should have the ability to regulate and control land use. Local officials, they argue, understand the development that the community desires. In other words, they believe that the community should impose its values and interests upon individual property owners, regardless of the individual’s own values and interests.
- Opponents of upzoning claim that they want local control of land use. They evade the fact that the most local form of land use control occurs when the owner is free to use his land as he chooses. Opponents of upzoning don’t want true local control of land use; they want community control of land use.
- Single-family zoning is founded on the premise that the individual is subservient to the group—the community. The individual cannot use his property as he chooses, but only as the community thinks appropriate. Those who violate the dictates of zoning officials become criminals, subject to fines, imprisonment, or both.
- Some have claimed that single-family zoning protects property rights. Such claims are based on a false view of the right to property. The right to property means the freedom to produce, use, and trade material values as one deems best. Single-family zoning restricts a land-owner’s freedom to use his property as he chooses.
- Some have claimed that denser housing development decreases property values. However, numerous studies have found that the value of single-family homes increases when denser development occurs. Neighborhoods with mixed residential uses are attractive to a wider range of individuals, and this increases demand for housing in such communities.[1]
- Many individuals want to live in a neighborhood consisting of single-family homes. While this is an understandable desire, denser housing development does not violate anyone’s rights. Single-family zoning uses the coercive power of government to impose one group’s desires upon the entire community.
Download all of our real estate talking points by clicking here.
[1] See Dejan Eskic, “The Impact of High-Density Apartments on Surrounding Single-Family Home Values in Suburban Salt Lake County,” Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, February 2021, https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/HighDensity-Feb2021.pdf