Government intervention hypocrisy
Is it not odd that many people who complain about government involvement in the housing market are the very ones who encourage zoning laws for their preferences? While there are good critiques on the short-sightedness of the Obama administration’s plans to increase the government’s role in helping the poor acquire access to better housing, the problem is that government intervention is one of the largest variables in the housing crisis in the first place. And this includes zoning laws.
The major government players in the housing market include the Federal Reserve, the government-created and privately owned Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and multiple state and local agencies. These agencies tend to serve as guarantors of risky lending practices that, when left to market forces, would have saved thousands from taking on debt they could not manage.
One of the unnoticed villains in the crisis were local zoning laws. Zoning laws are generally ways in which the elite use government intervention to keep “riffraff” out their communities as well as to thwart local land development that does not fit with the social preferences of the elite, explains Thomas Sowell in the book The Housing Boom and Bust. Restricting the use of land for the sake of “preserving open space,” “saving farmland,” “protecting the environment,” “historical preservation,” and other political mantras actually work to drive up property values in ways in which the market would reduce. Having minimum lot-size restrictions, for example, is a sinister way in which the elite, according to Sowell, “watch the values of their homes shoot up after the restrictions, so that they gain financially as well as by keeping out less affluent people and thereby preserving the character of the community as they like it.”
Local planning commissions often introduce so many regulatory impediments for housing developments that it is no longer cost-effective to build new housing in the first place. Land use restrictions, used by liberals and conservatives, over the past 50 years had a role to play in distorting the supply and demand matrix in the housing market. The market was not free to meet real needs because the elite used the government to prevent development. The elite doesn’t want low-income people living near them, either. Why aren’t those against government intervention fighting against zoning laws that prevent low-income housing developments?
Because of property inflation due to zoning restrictions, there are more and more calls to “make housing affordable.” This is happening in some areas because lower-priced options like trailer parks, apartments, homes on smaller lots, and so on are similarly not available nor allowed in certain areas. If conservatives are truly against government intervention in low-income housing, they should also be against government intervention used to codify social preferences of the elite.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top22 Comments to “Government intervention hypocrisy”
Don’t we involve (and welcome) government when we take the “tax breaks” that come with home-ownership?
When government gives money to business, it’s called a subsidy.
When government gives money to homeowners, it’s called a tax break.
When government gives money to the poor, it’s called welfare.
It’s ALL welfare, and accepting government money invites them through your front door. After that, it’s too late to say no.
Regarding zoning, consider this: Zoning = American apartheid.
Report comment to moderator
And if my neighbor wants to run a junkyard next door to my house? Well, not literally, but it sure looks like one at times.
Sorry, but I’m evidently one of those “elite” who’d like to keep the riff-raff out of my neighborhood…. Or at least enforce the county code on the riff-raff.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm… interesting. Never thought about that angle. I found the zoning laws in my city annoying (we have more laws against too large of lots, to curb “urban sprawl”), I didn’t think about it through this lens. I’ll have to reflect some more before I make up my mind…
Report comment to moderator
All in favor of “Gated Communities” raise your hand.
I am all in favor of low cost housing, just like windmills for alternative power, just as long as it is not in MY neighborhood!
NO, NO, we can’t have that now can we?
(I hope you sense sarcasim here)
Report comment to moderator
And that comment comes from a one wage earner household whose income is quite a bit less than the 2007 US median income of $50,233.00.
Report comment to moderator
Is it anti-capitalist to wish for a yard that doesn’t have the neighbors trash blowing through it? Is it anti-capitalist to wish that visitors to my house don’t (un-prompted) ask who runs the junkyard next door? Is it anti-capitalist to wish I could have a view of a well kept yard, rather than old junk trucks, steam rollers, backhoes, lawntractors, trailers, and tar tanks laying about?
I’m sorry but some of those laws have a very good reason for existing…
Report comment to moderator
MIM: This may be an unecessary question. Have you have addressed the problem with local authorities?
Report comment to moderator
I’m all for zoning regs as long as those regs are made up by the community itself though the town or city council process, and not imposed by state or federal government (unless the land is owned by the state or federal gov.) There could be some exceptions to that if there are conditions or circumstances that materially affect the surrounding towns or states. In most cases, local government is best at deciding what workes for a community while protecting the individual.
Report comment to moderator
The hood is actually well-located real estate that the government could help turn into a tremendous asset for the residents.
One of the things the government could do would be to finance the recording of good titles for descendants of folks who died without transferring titles. The government needs to help residents cut the knees out from under real estate “investors” who buy properties at tax sales and then rent them out exorbitantly.
Instead of selling to “investors” the government ought to buy abandoned properties and turn them into open lots for future development. The government needs to take this land away from the “injuns” all over again!
Report comment to moderator
Austin Texas has some of the priciest land and aptments in the entire state. The BANANA attitude is very prevalent (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Next to Anybody)
Report comment to moderator
You are all going to Heaven, right? So why are you so obsessed with politics? In the long run…
Report comment to moderator
Two Words: Corporate Subsidies. Now when the gov’t deals with that, then both democrats and republicans might talk about non-government intervention in a non-hypocritical way. I’m not holding my breath, however.
Report comment to moderator
Folks,
This zoning discussion as entirely academic.
Zoning laws exist in virtually every municipality of appreciable size.
And, MTM, I agree with you. I really would not want to have a hog farm in my backyard – which is in the midddle of a city. Some of these zoning regs are necessary; but if an area is “overzoned”, re-zoning is always possible.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder if the mortgage interest deduction is mentioned. Now there’s a subsidy to homeowners which discriminates against renters.
As for the purpose of zoning — it depends on who controls the local gov’t. Here we have max. lot size, a standard ratio of low price to high price housing in each development including a percentage set aside for low income rental units. Hence the neighborhood school where I teach in a relatively new development we have detached homes, semi-detached homes, freehold townhouses, and public housing (row housing). Hardly the result of elitist zoning laws rather the opposite. Which supports my main point its not that gov’t intervention is good or bad but for whom does the gov’t intervene.
Report comment to moderator
I want a happy medium, personally. I choose not to live in a neighborhood with a home owner’s association, because I don’t want that kind of restrictions (nor do I want to pay for someone to tell me how tall my grass can be). Yet I wouldn’t want what MIM describes, either.
Years ago I was looking at the possibility of renting in Oak Park, Illinois, which on one hand prides itself on inclusiveness (gay rights, mix of ethnicities), but on the other hand is quite hostile to the poor black neighborhoods on the edges of the Chicago city limits (the other side of the street). I ran in horror from the very thought of renting there once I found out two policies (and wondered how many others I didn’t know about): one was that home owners were strictly limited on numbers of dogs and cats (I think one dog, and one inside or two outdoor cats), a limit that seemed too intrusive even though I myself wasn’t in a position to get a dog yet. The other one was that everyone who lived there had to rent or buy a parking space or garage space somewhere because no parking was allowed on the street for something like two hours in the middle of the night. And I was told more or less directly that the reason for that ordinance was to keep “those people” from being on their nice city streets overnight. (The way I heard it was that if they allowed overnight parking, a person could pretend to be walking to his car when he was really there to rob. Whatever.)
Anyway, when it was time to buy, I very carefully looked for a community old enough not to have home owners associations, where it might matter if someone had fifteen dogs, but having two would be perfectly normal.
Report comment to moderator
Definition of “riff-raff”?
Report comment to moderator
MIM, that stuff in your neighbor’s yard is called “yard art.” I hope you can get the town to do something about it. There is nothing wrong with wanting to live in a nice place, and as long as it is local, and for the most part it is, I think a community should be able to make up its own rules through its local laws.
We have what’s called the Mount Laurel Decision in NJ. Towns were supposed to provide low-income housing, but the fancy towns “sold” their requirements to other poorer towns so they could build the low-income housing. I’ve always felt that that should not be allowed because it really doesn’t solve the problem, it just transfers it, and quite frankly, it’s discriminatory in my view. (Kinda like selling carbon credits. Don’t like that either.) We do have a wealthy town (Summit) that has broad support within the town for new low-income housing, but understand that the people they are aiming for are the teachers and police officers who work there, not the poor. Still, it’s a start.
HRW is quite right about home ownership in the US v. renters. You get to deduct your house taxes and your interest. (In NJ, we renters get a little tax rebate based on the amount of our rent, but nothing like what homeowners get.)
Report comment to moderator
“Have you have addressed the problem with local authorities?”
So much so, for so long, with so little results, that I’ve given up. My only real choice is to move, which isn’t going to happen.
Report comment to moderator
Make it man,
in most places there are special laws about ‘taking care ‘ of public nuisances. Study those laws. And then use a good digital camera and Kinko’s big big printers to record why the next yard is a public nuisance.
Report comment to moderator
Make it man,
I once had a neighbor that was incompatible. An obvious case. With a little research I discovered that the IRS was after him. They put a lien on his house and I had a friend buy it at auction. All in all it did not take long to take care of the problem.
If the owner of the house next to you is not the resident there are also rules about landlords where you may find some satisfaction.
Report comment to moderator
Every time I buy a house I have to look at all of the zoning and other rules. I am building a new house (in the planning processes) and I have a lot of loops to look at. Some I will have to jump through. Some of the items I agree with. Some of them I don’t. Some of them are just hidden taxes. Freedom is a constant vigilance.
Report comment to moderator
As one who was a renter for the first 14 years of our nearly-24-yr. marriage, I can sympathize with the renters who would like more of a tax break. But as a homeowner for almost 10 years, I can say that owning a home is expensive. It goes beyond the mortgage, & includes water & heating (which many renters don’t have to pay), repairs, etc., etc.
So, as a homeowner, I am very grateful for any tax break we can get.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's blogs to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!