Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

I'm trying to say that I haven't seen is a convincing argument that we face net negative externalities by zoning more densely in reality.

Even if you could demonstrate that eliminating zoning laws would increase welfare in the aggregate (and you can't), that wouldn't make the negative externalities of higher density any less real for the people who would have to endure them. People are not going to give up laws that protect aspects of their community they value, like mobility and privacy and quiet. I don't know why you keep ignoring this basic point. To the extent that people genuinely prefer high density, the political process and the market will deliver high density. But most people don't want high density. That's why it's relatively rare. Absent a huge shift in preferences, this isn't going to change. You can keep throwing around feel-good buzzwords like "sustainability" and "efficiency" as much as you like, but unless you can persuade people that living in small, dense housing and giving up car travel for public transit is genuinely in their best interests they'll just keep ignoring you.

by Bertie on Sep 26, 2011 5:04 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam