The Paper Curtain of government

For weeks I've railed about ordinances, zoning, regulations and building codes that balloon the cost of all housing, especially low-cost housing. The problem is enormous, but quite hidden from view. We have no way of knowing how much innovation has been silently destroyed by such controls or what great ideas were simply abandoned by those who had an inkling that they could never bring them to fruition. Such entrenched, stifling controls are the NATURAL outcome of any government power. Centralized power tends to grow continually, attracting those people who enjoy wielding power, and those who wish to force others to live as they do. It also tends to corrupt, since wherever there is power, there is potential profit for anyone who can manipulate it to their own advantage.

I'm going to point you to an example that is anything but typical, but which illustrates the underlying problems very clearly. Often, property developers are part of the problem... seducing local government into evicting current property owners in order to get a large plot of open land.

This is the story, beautifully documented over time by Bob Shaw of the St. Paul (MN) Pioneer Press, of a very large developer of high-end homes, trying to build a large innovative community of such homes on what was once the largest farm in the state. There is no eminent domain here, and no corruption... simply a developer with a vision designed to make their development more attractive than the competition. A profit motive, and one that would harm no others, obviously benefiting everyone in that area. The experienced developer knew that such an innovative project would be difficult in many ways, including dealing with the Lakeville "embedded controls". The story, for all of us to learn from, is that despite extensive experience and expensive preparation, those controls, and innumerable "interested parties" would almost kill the whole project.

Here's are a couple of teasers from the website of the project, but I encourage you to read the whole story. Doing so will give you an inkling of the near-impossibility of innovation in the face of governmental inertia.

Such rules were unknown to Henry Brandtjen Sr., the founder of the legendary farm. In the 1930s, he built whatever he liked on his land, without asking permission from anyone.

To build on the same land today, 24 units of local, state and federal government must review plans. Among them are 14 agencies with names like Pollution Control, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources. One is Soil and Water; another is Water and Soil.

Eleven have a hand in managing wetlands. Each is independent, with rules that change and sometimes conflict. And they monitor only environmental concerns — other agencies govern zoning, streets, parks and schools.

Private watchdogs also work to protect the environment. In Minnesota, there are about 90 environmental nonprofits, from the Tree Trust to People Against Chemical Excess to the Sierra Club. About 200 more are smaller, without the nonprofit status.

Together, they create a red-tape gauntlet that has provoked complaints throughout Minnesota and is part of a national controversy. (read the full article)

and this additional teaser:

Wachholz had spent a year trying to convince the Lakeville Planning Commission to let him build a billion-dollar project that he said would take suburbs in a new direction.

He had known it wouldn't be easy. Lakeville and other US, suburbs had been built the same way since World War II. Half of Americans and three-quarters of people in the Twin Cities metro area live in suburbs built by a strict formula — spread-out areas dominated by garage doors and big lawns, without front porches or sidewalks.

That night, the commission had endorsed Wachholz's project, the Spirit of Brandtjen Farm, the most radical new community in the state. It should have been a victory.

But the commission had attached a condition that undercut the future of the project. The vote was the climax of a year so tough, so expensive, so discouraging for Wachholz that it explained why developers almost never build anything different in Lakeville — or any other suburbs.

It would have been more profitable, Wachholz thought, to keep building clones of other projects that would breeze through official approval.

By mid-May, Putman was exhausted.

"I have written 'I give up' about four times in the past week," he said. "Projects like this will not suffer death of one gaping wound, but from 1,000 cuts. It is a genuine gauntlet."

"They have their life and soul and ego wrapped up in every regulation there is," Putman said.
(read the full article)

'Nuff said.

Urban Planning - we need to stop it

For weeks now, I've been attacking urban planning, the disease that has, for decades, infected our city governments. Urban planning is destroying the character of our cities and selling them to the highest bidders and/or those with the most political clout. Ironically, many of the urban planning crowd bemoan that people are fleeing to the suburbs, which are expanding into former farmland. The simple truth is that the boredom and expense of urban planning is what people are fleeing from, and no increase in planning will bring them back.

City urban planning would not exist in a libertarian society, because cities would not have the authority to interfere in private property issues. They would not have the ability to take property and give it to developers who present a grand plan for redevelopment. If a developer could convince enough people to sell their property, gradually accumulating enough space for a large development, then it would happen, but the developer would profit or lose his own money, not that of the taxpayers, and the previous owners would have voluntarily sold out at a fair price. You think there would be no more large developments? Hogwash. DisneyWorld, a mammoth development, was created under those conditions... no eminent domain... no pressure to sell. I'm sure there are local examples as well. Such a developer may have to pay a high price to get a large section of adjacent properties already being profitably used, but that assures that all existing property owners will get a fair return on their own investment.

Urban planners disparage the untidiness of UNplanned areas. They do not understand the diverse needs of people, and mistakenly believe that they can design areas that will be better than we can choose for ourselves. I've admitted that there is a little urban planner within me... I have that urge to remake everything around me to match what I believe is best. I've learned to control that urge, and to appreciate the different choices that others make. Some of my learning has been from neccessity. On a small fixed income now, I can appreciate the need for low-cost housing (not subsidized housing) as never before. Still, I have many neighbors who can afford even less than me. For them, there is NO good alternative anywhere in the cities... nothing cheaper than what I have. They can form a group of a large number of people to share an apartment or small house. Doing that is often illegal, and not very comfortable. They can try to get into subsidized housing, but their pride will take a hit even if they succeed, and it often takes years.

In a libertarian society, we would have very few building codes. Yes, that sounds shocking now, but most of America was built without them. Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home, could never have been built under today's building codes. Jefferson designed it himself, and parts of it are creativily strange. He hated to sleep, so the spiraling stairs to upstairs bedrooms are almost impassably cramped and steep.

Planners believe that, without building codes, houses would be built with little concern for safety. There is a grain of truth in that concern. Some low-cost housing would probably be built with a little less concern for safety (by current standards), but poor people have always been willing to risk a bit more in order to have shelter. Currently, they don't have that choice, at least in urban areas.

Any architect, and a great many amateurs, could design and build safe, attractive, livable homes at far lower cost than is now available, if only zoning and building codes were eliminated. Many have tried, only to be thwarted by governments. There are many building methods that simply are not allowed in our cities, where our poorest citizens must live. Buckminster Fuller's geodesic domes were adapted decades ago into a form that could be built by an amateur, at very low cost. Blown concrete over inflatable domes is another inexpensive building method, as is pressed straw/mud construction, underground structures, and many others. See any of them around your city? No, if you want one, you have to go out in the country where zoning and building codes don't exist... where you have the freedom to build truly inexpensive and energy-efficient housing.

It isn't just low-cost housing that is harmed by zoning and building codes. Those controls cramp creativity at all levels. Every new method, or material, or building technique has to go through a battle with the controls already in place. To those who feel bound to defend the controls, there is no such thing as a better way, there is only the accepted, dictated way.

What you would see in a libertarian society is a much more diverse surrounding. I know you would see more creative, unusual homes, but perhaps not radically different-looking. Most people have traditional taste, and would probably remain that way by choice. In that libertarian society, you would see a serious proliferation of commercial businesses, many very small start-up businesses, because they would be much easier and less expensive to start without much regulation. The failure rate of small businesses would decrease, because each business wouldn't be saddled with such high taxes and regulation. With lower costs, each would require less in sales to sustain themselves, so we would have many more of them, with much more variety... and lower prices.

A large percentage of our population has a dream of leaving their boring job and opening some kind of business. Many do so, but it becomes harder every year, as government controls drive up the minimum expense and increase the amount of time, and expertise, needed to comply with regulations. The people who MOST fervently want to open their own business are those whose background and education doesn't qualify them for career opportunities as an employee. They dream of having their own business... understanding and willing to put in the extreme effort needed, and to risk failure... just for the opportunity to be successful. Our overbearing governments are killing that dream for all but the most determined. The obstacles for them to overcome are so great that there is a special section within the U of Chicago law school that teaches law students how to assist in small (especially minority) business startups. That special school was founded by the libertarian Institute for Justice. Someone wishing to start a small business on their own NEEDS a specially-trained attorney just to wade through the morass of regulation and paperwork.

In a libertarian society, opening a small business would be as easy as it seems like it should be. You would just do it. Opening a small business need not be any concern of the city, county, or state. Why should it be? The business affects only their customers, if they can attract them and keep them. A business cannot remain in business unless its products or services are in demand, reasonably priced, and unless they do business fairly. If a business fails, it affects nobody but them. If a business succeeds, it certainly won't be because of government involvement. It is the way America was built... millions of small businesses, most of them run by immigrants.

We were once an amazing nation, filled with entrepreneurial spirit and a can-do attitude that literally screamed WATCH MY SMOKE. I don't think that attitude is dead, but it has been severely stifled with governmental roadblocks put in place through the pressure of big business, labor unions, and elected officials who are either corrupt or who believe they have the right to rebuild the world in their own image.

To the urban planners, both those in universities and those who sit on city planning commissions, I issue the often-declared demand of libertarians to government... JUST GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY. We are not helpless children in need of parental government protection, nor are we irresponsible kids who require tight controls. Citizens formed governmental units to serve them and perform a few functions. We've allowed it to degrade into us being the servants to government. It is time for us to start putting government back into the role of servant to us.