In Canada, as in the United States, single-family zoning is under attack. Canadian columnist Terence Corcoran (who labels himself as a member of the “libertarian school of economic thought”) argues, “Zoning should be treated as a fundamental aspect of property rights.” In truth, zoning is a fundamental violation of property rights.
The right to property means the freedom to produce, use, and trade material values. In regard to land use, this means that property owners has the right to use his land as he chooses, so long as he allows others to use their land as they choose.
In contrast, single-family zoning makes it illegal for a property owner to use his land for any purpose other than a single-family home. Under zoning, a land owner cannot use his property as he chooses, but only as government officials permit.
Like many other defenders of single-family zoning, Corcoran implies that dictating how others may use their property is a property right. This is absurd, and it means the annihilation of all property rights. If one is not free to use his property as he chooses, the right to property no longer exists.
In principle, to claim that zoning is an aspect of property rights is equivalent to saying that handing one’s wallet to an armed robber is an economic trade. Both zoning and the robber use force to obtain a value. Both zoning and the robber violate property rights.
Corcoran goes on to equate zoning with what he calls “free-market zoning”—a contractual agreement among property owners to voluntarily limit the use of their land. Such contractual agreements exist today, and they are called deed restrictions, or covenants. However, there is a fundamental difference between zoning and deed restrictions. Zoning is mandatory and coercive. Deed restrictions are voluntary and contractual. To call deed restrictions a form of free-market zoning is intellectually dishonest.
Zoning is not an aspect of property rights. It is the exact opposite of property rights.