This post is the fifth in a series.
In the past two posts, I have summarized my experiences while fighting zoning in two different cities—Houston, and Hobbs, New Mexico. I learned many things from those efforts. Perhaps the most important lesson was that when clear moral distinctions are made between opposing views, the more rational viewpoint has a much greater chance of success.
Ideas matter. In both Houston and Hobbs, I focused on fundamental ideas. Other opponents of zoning frequently talked about the economic harm done by land-use regulations. While this is an important point and worth making, it fails to address the morality—altruism—that underlies zoning.
Altruism holds that individuals have a moral duty to self-sacrificially serve others. If altruism is not challenged, then individuals often conclude that someone must sacrifice, and the only issue up for debate is who. But if altruism is challenged, many will understand that individuals can interact voluntarily and cooperatively without anyone being forced to sacrifice.
One of my sponsors in Hobbs considered this “big city” talk. It isn’t. The fact is, moral principles apply to every individual no matter where he lives. That is why my message resonated with voters in two very different cities. And that is why the advocates of zoning could not address my fundamental points. Instead, they made absurd claims that revealed their inability to think in principles.
During the debate over zoning in Houston, zoning advocates frequently claimed that opponents were resorting to lies, misrepresentations, and scare tactics. They based this claim on the fact that opponents often pointed to the myriad problems caused by zoning in every city that has it. To the pro-zoners, what has happened in Detroit, Chicago, New York, or any other city was not applicable to Houston. “Houston,” they repeatedly told us, “will have Houston-style zoning.” However, an adjective does not change the essential nature of zoning.
As one example, opponents explained that zoning leads to contentious battles between neighbors over land-use. Each side tries to influence zoning officials to rule in their favor. This is precisely what happened when zoning maps were first released in Houston. Before zoning was even implemented, neighbors were fighting neighbors over land-use designations. Despite the arbitrary claim that Houston would avoid the problems inherent in zoning, we saw those problems being made manifest almost immediately.
We addressed the claim that we were using scare tactics head on. We argued that certain principles underlie zoning. We explained that those principles lead to certain consequences when put into action. The same causes lead to the same effects. However, to zoning advocates, the fact that something was true of every city with zoning didn’t mean that it would be true of Houston.
If we want to influence public policy debates, then we must take a principled approach. We must identify the fundamental ideas involved, and then provide concrete examples of those ideas in action. That is how I helped defeat zoning in two different cities.