Zoning laws: A conservative dilemma
Written by William Mulgrew on January 27th, 2007I wrote a story in this Friday’s issue of The Bulletin that covered a new zoning survey released by the University of Pennsylvania.
The Situation:
The survey compiled a database of zoning and land use lands in 227 communities in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area and discovered the following:
- The densest areas experienced the least amount of housing cost increase over the last decade.
- The suburbs were more regulated than the City of Philadelphia (Chester County was the most, Delaware County the least).
- 57% of the surveyed communities experienced housing cost increase above the rate of inflation over the last decade.
- 60% of the surveyed communities had two or more forms of approval required for a development project.
What we can infer from the study:
- Excessive land use and zoning regulation deters some developers, places additional cost on consumers.
- Environmental and open space preservation drives up values of surrounding properties, reduces supply of available land while demand increases.
- Communities must choose between the competing interests of environmental and open space preservation and affordable housing.
I investigated Chester and Delaware counties and found the following:
- Chester County allocates 1/3rd of the cost for an open space project, municipalities and land trusts fork the rest. Delaware County only provides 5% of a given project.
- Chester County allocates $13 million a year for open space preservation (using property taxes to drive up the value of properties); Delco only allocated $820,000 in ‘06.
- Half of Chester’s 73 municipalities levy taxes earmarked for open space preservation.
- Delaware County hired urban planners for its 27 southeastern municipalities in 2002 to update their zoning codes, which were decades out of date, thereby reducing the amount of variances developers needed.
The Dilemma:
As conservatives, we’re against excessive regulation and rely on market competition to drive costs. Land trusts, conservationists, non-profits, foundations, and private entities can raise their own money to preserve open space without taxpayer subsidies.
However, when housing becomes more affordable, Democrats from Philadelphia move in and continue to vote Democrat– as was the case of the massive exodus of Philadelphians into the surrounding counties during the 90’s.
Are we fostering our own decline in the electorate?
Related:
The Count Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania released their 2007 agenda, calling for the General Assembly to give counties the authority to levy a realty transfer tax (a property sale) for the purpose of open space preservation. I wrote about that here.
28
PM
“However, when housing becomes more affordable, Democrats from Philadelphia move in and continue to vote Democrat”
Because all Democrats are poor and all Republicans are rich?
28
PM
I don’t think that policy positions should be based on future political success. That way lies Rovian cynicism and, ultimately, electoral failure.
Sociologists have looked at this same question through the abortion lens. Does the relative lack of fecundity among anti-natalists and abortion proponents spell doom for their cause? Hard to say.
28
PM
Shiffman,
No, not ALL Republicans are rich and ALL Democrats are poor, only that the median income level in Philadelphia is less than the suburbs and Philadelphia is a Democrat town.
The 90’s saw a massive shift in population as people moved out of the city into the suburbs, and the suburbs went from red to purple to nearly blue.
28
PM
We should never be picking our policy positions just for electoral reasons, moreover, we should be taking our message to the newly arrived folks and convincing them to become Republicans. This is the only way we win in the longterm.
28
PM
Fortunately the Republicans have a permanent majority, so this is all fairly academic.
28
PM
Mark is correct. As one heavily involved in Pennsylvania politics I am all too aware of the fractured GOP structure in Philadelphia’s neighboring counties. Ronald Reagan once praised the exceptional organization of the Montgomery County GOP and accredited them with his win of Pennsylvania. Today the Montco party is disfunctional with corruption and backstabbing, a failure of its Chairman, Ken Davis, and convicted felon, Bob Asher, the National Committeeman.
This is the real reason that the Philly suburbs have moved Democrat. It’s the lack of organization, ethics, and principles among the local GOP groups.