Why Houston is better than your crappy city.

Here's an interesting discussion of property rights and Houston. Personally, I don't agree with the author's belief that governments have no right to meddle with individual property decisions. Frankly, governments should have the right to make reasonable limitations on personal use of property - so long as those limitations correct for problems of externalities, injustice, etc.

But his point that land-zoning advocates are in this for primarily ideological reasons is spot on. It seems to me that what little debate there is on this subject tends to be less about what is economically advantageous, but about what satisfies our beliefs about what a city should be.

And Houston, as I have said before, flies in the face of what a city should be, or at least the modern conception of how a city should function. The problem is that zoning advocates don't see that Houston is still developing as an urban environment - we are roughly where New York was in the late 19th century. And it will be some time until the costs of further sprawl (transportation, infrastructure, and preferences) outweigh the benefits of more suburbs. Gradually, as the marginal cost of more low-density development increases, Houston will begin to "fill in." Once that process is complete - say, in another twenty-five years - the Bayou City will be truly monstrous in size.

The way I see it, zoning accomplishes the same project - high density urban development - in less time, but at a higher cost. To some cities, I imagine that this is an acceptable tradeoff, particularly for those that will not be able to grow as large or as fast as Houston. But Houston, because it is naturally a hub for immigration (has been since my great-grandfather's family came through Galveston from France), and is naturally (or unnaturally, depending on how you view the channel) a port, has greater potential for growth. More to the point, other cities might view that dynamism and decide to grow less - knowing that overall growth in the US is undetermined by their individual growth rates, and they will not be able to attract the jobs that Houston does - by instituting zoning regulations. Zoning isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it can be a rational choice. Now, we have to see that Houston's lack of zoning regulations has come at a price, but it's one that people are (on the whole) willing to bare.

Now, the author is wrong in assuming that bad things have not come from a lack of zoning. Of course, that depends on how you view the strip clubs, liquor joints, and sex shops that exist throughout the city. I think they contribute to the beautiful culture of Houston, so I don't think it's so bad. But others do think that our lack of regulation has allowed unsavory businesses to flourish. Of course, they flourish because there is a demand for booze, dildos, and naked women, so one can chalk that up to efficient land use.

Overall, I like the lack of zoning. And it's not as if land is freely used throughout the greater Houston area - numerous deed agreements exist throughout our city. But those agreements come from "natural" market interaction, not forced upon us by non-market agents.

Give Houston another few decades, and it will be the cultural equal of Los Angeles or Chicago (that is if it isn't their equal already; it just might be). It will just have liquor stores and strip clubs in more convenient locations. And that's pretty sweet.