An interesting story comes from Sugar Land, Texas, a suburb of Houston. Last May, the city council voted to deny permission for a mixed-use development. At the time, the city’s mayor claimed that the project did not comply with Sugar Land’s comprehensive plan (i.e., zoning laws). Now, the city wants to spend taxpayer money to attract new residents and development. Rather than try to manage growth through prohibitions and “investments,” the city should just get out of the way.
Communities like Sugar Land want development and growth, but they want it on their terms. They want to attract investment, and they use zoning and other land-use regulations to control how that investment occurs.
Developers, who are far more in tune with consumer desires than politicians and bureaucrats, often have a vision that differs from that of government officials. But rather than use their money to act as their judgment leads them, they must grovel at the feet of politicians for permission to act. At the same time, Sugar Land officials want to use your money to attract those developers.
Government officials, including those in Sugar Land, frequently like to point out that their plans were developed with community input. However, just as truth isn’t determined by a vote, the morality and justice of a policy isn’t determined by the number of people supporting it.
Ninety-six percent of the land in Sugar Land is already developed, and most of that land is zoned for single-family homes. If the city wants to attract new residents, denser housing development will be necessary. This can occur two ways: build up or allow more housing per lot. The city, however, wants to preserve and protect single-family neighborhoods.
This means that city officials have contradictory goals. They want to attract development and new residents while simultaneously prohibiting the types of land uses that will enable development and the additional housing that new residents will need.
The solution to this contradiction is to just get out of the way. If the city quit trying to dictate land uses and abolished single-family zoning, it would boom. This does not mean that single-family neighborhoods would be overrun with apartment complexes and strip malls. It does mean that “mixed middle” housing, such as duplexes, “granny pads,” and small apartment buildings would become legal in the city. Such housing can be built in a way that does not detract from the character of a neighborhood.
In addition, deed restrictions (which many neighborhoods already have) can be used as a voluntary and contractual method for maintaining a neighborhood’s character. Unlike zoning, deed restrictions enable property owners to change land uses without first seeking government permission. Some neighborhoods may welcome mixed middle housing, small restaurants and pubs, and retail shops near their home. But for that to happen, government officials need to get out of the way.