Skip to main content

Egregious Zoning Laws

I've expressed my dislike for zoning laws in the past. Like other urbanists, my biggest objection is that zoning segregates residential homes from retail and office space and makes it arbitrarily difficult for people to get from the places they live to the places they want and need to go.

Now, right in my backyard, a new zoning debate is brewing; a debate over a type of zoning perhaps even worse than the worst type of Euclidean zoning.

The short version of the story is that John Carroll University owns four apartment buildings directly adjacent to its campus, but which sit in the city limits of Shaker Heights (the rest of the campus is in University Heights). The mayor of Shaker Heights wants a zoning law that would (among other things) cap the number of students allowed to live in each university-owned apartment building (hypothetically, at something like 50% or 75% of total occupancy, although I don't think official numbers have been released).


I'm not even going to try to defend college students as good neighbors. Yes, they can be immature and obnoxious and loud and stay up all night. Yes, they are highly transient and many don't live in the same place for more than a few months at a time. But the question of good neighbor/bad neighbor is a judgment call as is. Plus, this is a really a question of practicality.

Having apartment units on or very close to the JCU campus means that the students in those buildings will walk to and from class, the library, the gym, and whatever else they might be doing on campus. It means fewer awful surface parking spaces will need to be allocated on for commuters, and it means an overall more-connected and better-integrated campus.

The reality is that students have to live somewhere. Shaker Heights seems to be betting on the outcome that if they can "zone" students out of the most convenient apartment buildings, that they will disperse throughout University Heights, Cleveland Heights, South Euclid and other surrounding suburbs. That might be a decent outcome for NIMBYs trying to rid their suburb of college students, but its really bad for everyone else.

Herein lies the broad problem with zoning... it allows local governments to essentially hand pick what kind of activity is allowed to take place on privately owned property, and local governments often aren't very good at it. Euclidean zoning laws say people can't live in an apartment on top of a grocery story, so people have to travel long distances to get to one. Remember, an arrangement like the one in the photo below is against the law in many places across America; the answer to why is more about politics than about practicality.

(from flickr user M.V. Jantzen)

Similarly, Shaker Heights wants to restrict students from living near campus, so the alternative will be for them to travel a longer distances to get to it. I'm not defending the market as perfect in every instance, but in this case, excessive government regulation is not good.

Lastly, I honestly believe that this type of zoning borders on the unconstitutional. I am not a lawyer and may be missing something glaringly obvious, but it seems to be one thing for government say that a residential home can't be used as a factory, or to prohbit people from living in a restaurant. It's entirely another to say that a specific demographic group cannot occupy more than a pre-determined number of apartment units, even if they are able and willing to pay.

Comments

nathan said…
As a Houstonian, I'm a big fan of no-zoning. Sure, sometimes there are things that aren't really that great because of the lack of zoning laws, but a majority of the time, the invisible hand creates mixed-used communities that would make Jane Jacobs proud.
Angie said…
Glad you asked. I'm taking planning law this semester. Look up this case and you'll have your answer:

George Washington University vs. The District of Columbia.

Popular posts from this blog

In Praise of Southwest's 'C' Boarding Group

A few weeks ago I saw a tweet from someone complaining that their Southwest Airlines boarding pass had been assigned A20 (meaning they would be at least one of the first twenty passengers to board the plane). Apparently this person though they should have been assigned a higher number, less their flight experience be considerably spoiled.

Despite the complaints, Southwest has resisted demands to assign seats on its flights, a decision which I personally applaud. I'll admit that I was skeptical when they rolled out the newest boarding procedure, assigning both boarding groups and a line number; but in hindsight it seems like one of the best operational decisions they've ever made. If nothing else, it effectively eliminated the infamous "cattle call" whereby fliers were getting to airports hours in advance and sitting in line on the floor as if they were waiting for the midnight showing of the new Star Wars movie.

When I was an intern at Southwest Airlines last winter, I…

So You Want to be a Southwest Airlines Intern?

My personal website must have pretty decent SEO - because in the past year, I've received about two dozen emails from aspiring Southwest Airlines interns looking to draw on my experience in search of their own dream internship. In the past two weeks alone a few new emails have already started rolling in...

(from flickr user San Diego Shooter)

If you've found your way here, you might be hoping for the silver bullet; a secret tip that will propel you above the competition. Unfortunately, I do not know any inside secrets. I can only share my experience as an internship candidate about two years ago and, rather than responding individually to future emails I anticipate to receive, I hope that potential interns will find the information posted here valuable.

Understand: Southwest Airlines is a very unique company. The corporate culture at Southwest is truly unlike that of nearly every other company. But you probably already knew that, since it now seems mandatory for every management,…

Good Advertising

The blogosphere seems to be one fire over Microsoft's new "Lauren" TV commercial. Frankly, I don't see what the commotion is about.



If the critics are correct, then "Lauren" is actually Lauren De Long, a Screen Actors Guild eligible actress; and apparently, if you look close enough, she never even enters the Apple store.

Even if all of that is true, it doesn't refute the fact that Apple's laptops are significantly more expensive than most PCs. It isn't a lie that Apple doesn't sell any 17-inch laptops for less than a grand. The advertisement doesn't make any reference to the quality of the machines (or contest any of the claims made in Apple's "I'm a PC" commercials) or provide any good reason to buy one other than price.

As far as I can tell, after years of horrible commercials and a series of flops, Microsoft seems to finally have hired an ad agency that put together a decent advertisement. It's not likely to persuad…