Writing in The Federalist, David Larsen makes a compelling case for eliminating single-family zoning. And he takes his fellow conservatives to task for opposing the Biden administration’s call to relax zoning laws:
Are conservatives only against impositions on freedom and property rights from the federal government, while local governments should have absolute power over the size and use of all property in their jurisdictions?
Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding YES. And conservatives take that position on a myriad of issues, arguing that issues such as same sex marriage and drug legalization should be decided on the state level rather than by the federal government.
Many conservatives fear that if single-family zoning is abolished, as Larsen puts it, “a giant apartment complex full of gangs and crime will pop up on the empty lot in their cul-de-sac.” Such arguments are founded on the grossly inaccurate view that a large percentage of people who reside in apartments are criminals.
Larsen notes that individuals choose to live in an apartment for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with crime. Retired individuals on a fixed income often prefer an apartment over the expense and hassle of owning a house. Young adults, such as recent college graduates, haven’t accumulated the wealth necessary to buy a house. Similarly, struggling artists and writers don’t have the money to purchase a house. None of these individuals pose an inherent threat to others.
Larsen concludes by pointing out that just because Leftists like Biden support a position is not a legitimate reason to oppose that position. Even a broken analog clock is correct twice a day. However, Biden is not calling for reducing single-family zoning as a matter of principle. He is doing it for politically expedient reasons. But his reasons do not change the fact that single-family zoning is a primary contributor to the rising cost of housing.
If conservatives truly value property rights, as they frequently profess, then they should eagerly support policies that will restore those rights. The fact that they don’t exposes their professed support of property rights as a sham. To most conservatives, claiming support for property rights is a matter of political expediency, not principles.