« Betting market for the Nobel Prize, economics included | Main | Paul Krugman, pussycat »
Words of wisdom
One thing we could do as a country that could help reduce carbon emissions in a relatively pain-free way would be to ease regulations around what you're allowed to build where.
That's from Matt Yglesias, and I loved his take on the debates.
Addendum: Here is Virginia Postrel as well, and of course we are all wishing her the best in her struggle with breast cancer.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 9, 2007 at 09:25 PM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
His post reminds me of Jane Jacobs. Even liberals, especially younger ones, love her ideas.
Posted by: thehova at Oct 10, 2007 12:16:51 AM
Or, more generally, what contracts you're allowed to enter into, under what conditions, and with whom. Thanks for coming to work today.
Posted by: JPC at Oct 10, 2007 1:16:20 AM
The Virginia Postrel article he linked to was far more insightful and topical than his was. It is eminently affordable to live in the bulk of the US, including in cities. The exception is the blue states, and I agree with Virginia that it may well not be a coincidence. It is very easy to talk about a vanishing middle class when the middle class can't afford to live in your overregulated city.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Oct 10, 2007 1:27:41 AM
If the point is to ensure that development is at a sufficient density to significantly reduce emissions from car and home energy use, then by all means remove the kind of regulations that restrict density, but you really do also need the kind of regulations that restrict sprawl. To simply "ease regulations around what you're allowed to build where" without recognising the impacts of different regulations on what you're trying to do will not help.
Posted by: Jim at Oct 10, 2007 2:54:47 AM
If the point is to ensure that development is at a sufficient density to significantly reduce emissions from car and home energy use, then by all means remove the kind of regulations that restrict density, but you really do also need the kind of regulations that restrict sprawl. To simply "ease regulations around what you're allowed to build where" without recognising the impacts of different regulations on what you're trying to do will not help.
Posted by: Jim at Oct 10, 2007 2:57:08 AM
Exactly, it's the special cases that set the heart of an interventionist aflutter.
Posted by: JPC at Oct 10, 2007 3:00:30 AM
The data that is referenced for the graph by Virgina Postrel is at
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/glaeser/
papers/Manhattan.pdf
In the paper an implied tax for zoning regulations is calculated for each city. San Francisco is the highest at 53%, New York is only 12%, while Washington DC which has a lot of restrictions to preserve historic neighborhoods is 22%. I can't track down the source of the graph by Ryan Morris.
Posted by: joan at Oct 10, 2007 3:06:48 AM
I love this blog. Really.
I'd like to add it to my Google Reader, but since you fire your posts several times a day, sometimes minute after minute, it would overload my Reader.
Sorry 'bout that.
Greets
Posted by: Klaus at Oct 10, 2007 3:20:25 AM
As I wrote in 2001:
What property owners think of laissez-faire property rights tends to depend on their self-interest, which generally varies with the degree of existing development.
Owners of undeveloped land mostly oppose restrictions on their freedom to build on it.
Homeowners in the middle of nowhere frequently find it in their interest to let their neighbors have fairly free rein in developing their land. That's because higher population densities would raise their own property values by making it economically feasible to bring to their district such amenities as paved roads, sewer lines, and shopping.
As density increases, however, a turning point is typically reached. After a certain point, adding more housing density would hurt the property values of current homeowners. Then, homeowners often start to try to impose development restrictions on the owners of nearby empty land.
This logic suggests that support for environmentalist candidates like Al Gore would be greater in heavily developed suburbs than in rural areas.
Judging from the famous "Red vs. Blue" map of 2000 election results, that turned out to be true last November. Although Al Gore won a narrow plurality of the popular vote, George W. Bush won counties covering about four-fifths of the land area in the lower 48 states. Bush, with his anti-environmentalist views, did much better in counties where the typical landowner would benefit from new developments. In contrast, the staunchly green Gore did best in already crowded regions. Gore's counties have about five times the population density of Bush's counties.
Exit polls showed the GOP candidate's vote development levels increased. Bush won 59 percent of vote in rural areas and small towns, but only 49 percent of the suburbs. In small cities, Bush took 40 percent of the vote, and in big cities just 26 percent.
http://www.isteve.com/Golf_Range_Rover_Republicans.htm
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Oct 10, 2007 4:34:19 AM
Loss of "environmental services" is more apparent in built up areas, is it not?
I mean, where I live I see the "last" hills being built. That has to affect me in a visceral way, more than someone surrounded by many, many, hills.
Posted by: odograph at Oct 10, 2007 6:44:47 AM
"If the point is to ensure that development is at a sufficient density to significantly reduce emissions from car and home energy use, then by all means remove the kind of regulations that restrict density, but you really do also need the kind of regulations that restrict sprawl. To simply "ease regulations around what you're allowed to build where" without recognising the impacts of different regulations on what you're trying to do will not help."
Which regulations restrict sprawl? Pretty much all of the land use regulations in Southern California encourage or even mandate sprawl. They almost always mandate maximum residential densities, while never mandating minimum densities, and usually separate residential areas from the areas in which people work. I can't think of a single land use regulation that I've ever seen that "restricts sprawl." Nor can I think of how such a regulation would ever get passed in today's political climate.
The closest you'd get is so called mixed-use zoning, but I believe that that type of zoning typically allows but does not require mixed uses. So really, its no better than no zoning (at least when it comes to "restricting sprawl").
Posted by: Doug at Oct 10, 2007 1:59:10 PM
"One thing we could do as a country that could help reduce carbon emissions in a relatively pain-free way would be to ease regulations around what you're allowed to build where."
How about the negative externalities of greater density? More congestion. Less parking. Dysfunctional public schools. Higher taxes. Possibly crime.
It's always funny to see economists ignoring the negative externalities associated with any policy that they happen to agree with, while harping about them when they are in agreement. Doesn't improve the credibility of the profession though.
Of course, anyone who is really concerned about housing and the environment should be willing to mention the dreaded "I" word. However, this is another story.
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Oct 10, 2007 3:19:28 PM
Doug,
"Pretty much all of the land use regulations in Southern California encourage or even mandate sprawl."
Nice theory. Bad facts. Check out "Out West, a Paradox: Densely Packed Sprawl" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081002110.html). Useful quote
"The urbanized area in and around Los Angeles has become the most densely populated place in the continental United States, according to the Census Bureau. Its density is 25 percent higher than that of New York, twice that of Washington and four times that of Atlanta, as measured by residents per square mile of urban land."
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Oct 10, 2007 3:44:39 PM
It may be true that urbanized Los Angeles has a high population density, but I'm not convinced that this is because of land use regulations. Again, I'm not aware of any requirements that mandate MINIMUM densities, while I am aware of tons that mandate maximum densities and separate commercial uses from residential uses.
I haven't read the article yet, though, so my apologies if some examples are in there.
Posted by: Doug at Oct 10, 2007 6:09:41 PM
A big purpose of maximum density zoning laws in suburbs is to keep out poorer people whose children would hurt the local public schools.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Oct 10, 2007 8:53:26 PM
LA density is caused by the surrounding mountains. There are places where you just plain cannot build regardless of regulations. Unless you are willing to rebuild your house every two to three years after it slides down the hill or canyon. Read John McPhee's essay on building in LA. It was written 25 years ago. The once you get over the mountains you are in Chaparral country. That only burns once every 5 years or so. Again if you are willing to rebuild very 5 years, then go for it.
Posted by: techreseller at Oct 16, 2007 10:09:36 AM
Posted by: 鑽石 at Apr 2, 2008 10:31:41 PM
