This paper investigates the case for abolishing zoning. Recent arguments for zoning abolition maintain that local governments can adequately regulate land use without the strict separation of permitted uses that characterizes modern zoning. The harms of zoning are consequential, and the case for abolishing zoning is stronger than it appears at first, because it does not imply abolishing other forms of land-use regulation. Meanwhile, zoning defenders counter that localities need to use zoning to preserve the integrity of residential neighborhoods. The debate hinges on political economy questions: Will zoning powers inevitably be abused, and would they be reconstituted in some other form if zoning were abolished? Evidence and theory both suggest that private land-use governance could be a non-exclusionary substitute for zoning, but transaction costs in setting up alternatives to zoning are significant. The paper concludes with proposals for“unbundling” zoning both functionally and spatially and making private land use governance work better.
Unbundling Zoning
